Court Opinion

ID: 7987285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 01:27:03.682092+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:35:14.288231
License: Public Domain

Cooper, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
It was competent for the state to prove that the appellant had been guilty of burglary on the night preceding the homicide, because:
1. That fact tended to show that the deceased had the right, to arrest the appellant without a warrant.
2. It tended to show that appellant knew why he was. sought to be arrested.
The pursuit of appellant was a fresh pursuit, within the-meaning of § 3026, code 1880. What is fresh pursuit must be determinable by circumstances, and where, as in this case,, a felony is committed at night, discovered in the morning: and the officer immediately follows and overtakes the felon,, who is attempting to escape, it is not necessary that he shall have á warrant for his arrest; and where, as here, the-fleeing felon is commanded to surrender, but refuses so to do, and runs away, and, being overtaken, kills the person seeking to-arrest Mm, he cannot invoke the principle of self-defense.
This case, in all its facts, is strikingly similar to People v. Pool, 27 Cal., 572, in which the questions here decided were, involved.

Judgment affirmed.