Court Opinion

ID: 9681525
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:52:04.271547+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:20.891204
License: Public Domain

ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DAVIDSON, Judge.
The state’s challenge of the correctness of our original con*626elusion is founded upon the general proposition that the acts and conduct of the appellant toward the deceased were such as to show an unauthorized and illegal attempt by appellant to arrest him, and that such action deprived the appellant of his perfect right of self-defense.
We are not in disagreement with the state as to the principle of law involved, but our disposition is based upon the proposition that the facts relied upon to show a forfeiture of appellant’s right of self-defense should have been submitted to the jury, under appropriate instructions. In other words, we are unable to say that the trial court was authorized to conclude that the facts showed a forfeiture, as a matter of law.
We remain convinced that a correct conclusion was reached by us originally.
The state’s motion for rehearing is overruled.