Court Opinion

ID: 9298653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-12-02 17:05:08.011882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:13:35.728775
License: Public Domain

WOODS, Circuit Judge
(charging jury). Though this case is tried in a court of the United States, it is to be determined by the law of Georgia, and you are to decide whether, under the law, O’Grady is guilty or not of the crime of murder, with which the indictment charges him. Murder is defined by the Code of Georgia as “the unlawful killing of a human being, in the peace of the state, by a person of sound memory and discretion, with malice aforethought, either express or implied.” Attention has been called in the argument of counsel to another species of homicide —manslaughter, which is defined in the same Code as “the unlawful killing of a human creature, without malice, either express or implied, and without any mixture of deliberation whatever,” etc. We are of the opinion that if the facts in proof in this case show any crime, it is murder, and not manslaughter, and therefore you may dismiss the question of manslaughter from your consideration.
The defendant comes to this bar, like every other person charged with crime, presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved, and the proof is insufficient for conviction unless it excludes all reasonable doubt. It is conceded that the deceased was killed by the prisoner. This fact, without explanation, would make out a case of murder, and if no explanation were offered, it would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty. But the fact of the homicide is open to explanation. The defense undertakes the explanation, and justifies the killing on the ground of self-defense. It insists that O’Grady, situated as he was at the time, had reasonable cause to believe, and did believe, that deceased was approaching him with a hostile and felonious intent, and that, in consequence thereof, he stood in peril of his life, or of great bodily harm. If the evidence satisfies you that this view is correct, you should acquit the prisoner. To form a right judgment upon this defense, you should put yourselves in his place at the time, and look at the facts, not as they appear by the light of subsequent disclosures, but as they then appeared to him.
His counsel relies on facts which he insists are proved, that the neighborhood had a reputation for violence towards those in the revenue service; that there was a supposed necessity of protecting and aiding them with military force; that it was night; that the prisoner was unacquainted with the ground; that his officers had warned him to be watchful against surprise; that the sergeant had ordered him to challenge every one who might come near; that he and his comrade were guarding four prisoners, who, if reinforced, might easily overpower them, and who had manifested a hostile disposition; and that de^ ceased came running and shouting in a manner that might well be taken for a bold assault, and did not halt when challenged, and argues that there was enough to excite the fears of a reasonable man, and to justify him in repelling the apprehended violence with a shot. You will consider all these facts, so far as they have been proved, and allow them due weight in support of the defense. The Code of Georgia justifies a homicide committed in defense of one’s person “against one who manifestly intends, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony on the person”; but it also declares that a bare fear of such an offense shall not justify the killing. “It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable man, and that the party killing really acted under the influence of those fears.”
The defendant derives no protection from the fact that he was a soldier. It was a time of peace, and a soldier was as much bound as a citizen to respect the laws of the state. He was there as a part of the posse of the revenue officer and of the marshal, and had the same, and only the same,- rights of self-defense that a citizen would have had under the same circumstances. Even if he had been ordered by his military commander to fire the fatal shot, that order, unless in itself lawful, would be no protection to him, for a soldier has no right to obey an unlawful order.
Nor can the accused derive any protection from the fact, if it be a fact, that the deceased was engaged in the habitual violation of the revenue laws of the United States. By violating the revenue laws the deceased did not forfeit his life. He was still under the protection • of the law. The killing of him unnecessarily, wantonly and willfully, by a revenue officer, or any of his posse, would be as clearly murder as the killing of the most law-abiding citizen of the land.
It is not denied that the accused was lawfully on the spot, or that it was his duty to prevent the rescue or escape of the prisoners, but if, under the pretense of performing that duty, he fired on the deceased unnecessarily, wantonly and willfully, the law holds the act to be with malice; and if you find that such were the facts of this case, your verdict should be guilty. But if, on the other hand, the evidence satisfies you that the accused had reasonable cause to believe, and did believe at the time he fired the fatal shot, -that in conse; quence of the hostile approach of the deceased he was placed in peril of life or limb, and 'by *248reason of such supposed peril he fired upon the deceased, in that case it would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.
NOTE [from original report in 5 Cent. Law J. 4G5]. No objection' was made to the jurisdiction of the United States court in this case. A few days before, a motion had been made to remand to the state court a case of misdemeanor that had been transferred under the same section of the Revised Statutes, which, after full consideration, the court denied; and, as the opinion of the court on the right to remove cases of this kind was thus ascertained, it was probably deemed useless to make a similar motion in the present case.
Under this charge the jury retired, and soon brought in a verdict of not guilty. The counsel for the prosecution then entered a nolle prosequi as to the defendants Wells and Newman.