Court Opinion

ID: 9675412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:52:50.246847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:34.379270
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
WOODLEY, Judge.
Appellant urges that reversible error is shown in the overruling of her objections to the court’s charge.
*444The trial judge was requested to instruct the jury that appellant had the right to prevent her false arrest and imprisonment and to use such force as was necessary to retain her liberty.
No such defensive issue was raised by the evidence. Appellant testified that she believed that her ex-husband was going into the police station for the purpose of having her locked up, and she decided to shoot him.
Such facts do not give rise to a charge regarding the right to defend against an illegal arrest and imprisonment.
The trial court gave an unrestricted charge upon the law of self-defense and threats, and there was no necessity for the further requested charge on appellant’s right to arm herself. See Branch’s Ann. P.C., p. 1091, Sec. 1950.
We have again examined appellant’s Bill of Exception No. 1 complaining of the following remark of the trial court:
“I want to go ahead with you Mr. Glover, and let you make the best case you can for your client.”
The jury was instructed not to consider the remark, and were assured by the trial judge that it was not intended as any comment upon the evidence or as to the guilt or innocence of appellant.
We remain convinced that the trial court was correct in refusing to declare a mistrial because of this incident.
Other questions as to the court’s charge have been considered and no reversible error found.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.