Hathaway v. State

Citations

• 32 Fla. 56

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — defense of servant — circumstances justifying REASONABLE BELIEF OF IMMINENT DANGER TO LIFE OF SERVANT ENOUGH TO EXCUSE HOMICIDE — FILING LISTS OF ALL WITNESSES SWORN BY GRAND JURY.</p> <p>1. An.individual indicted by a grand jury has no such personal interest in a compliance by the foreman of such grand jury with the provisions of Section 22, p. 624, McClellan’s Digest, Section 2809, Revised Statutes, requiring such foreman to return to the court a list of all witnesses sworn before such grand jury during the term, as would cause a non-compliance with such statute to affect liis rights under such indictment in any way, or that could make such non-compliance a ground for abatement of the prosecution against him, or that could furnish him with any ground of exception upon writ of error after conviction.</p> <p>2. The same circumstances that will justify or excuse the homicide where the assault is upon one’s self, will also excuse or justify ' the slayer if the killing is done in defense of his or her husband, wife, parent,- child, master, mistress or servant.</p> <p>8. Where the defendant sets up in justification of the homicide that the killing was done in defense of his servant, it is error to charge the jury that “before they can acquit, the evidence must satisfy them that there was in fact imminent danger of the apparent design of the deceased to kill or inflict great personal injury being accomplished.” All that was necessary to establish such defense was for the defendant to show, from the evidence, that he was surrounded by such a state of affairs as made it reasonable for a cautious and prudent man, thus situated, to believe that his servant was m imminent danger of losing her life, or of receiving great personal injury at the hands of the deceased, unless he struck the fatal blow. Smith vs. State, 25 Florida, 517, 6 South. Rep.. 482; Pinder vs. State, 27 Florida, 370, 8 South. Rep., 837, cited' and approved.</p>