Skip to main content

Kendrick v. State

Citations

  • 55 Miss. 436

Syllabus

<p>1. Criminal Law. Homicide. Justification. Instructions.</p> <p>In the trial of an indictment for homicide, it is not error for the court to instruct-the jury that the “mere fear, or apprehension, or belief, however sincerely entertained” by the accused, that the deceased intended to take his life, will not justify the killing. The apprehension must have been a reasonable one, created by the circumstances surrounding the accused.</p> <p>2. Same. Reasonable doubt.</p> <p>It is error to instruct the jury trying an indictment that “ any hypothesis arising out of the testimony inconsistent with the guilt of the accused” will require of them a verdict of acquittal. The hypothesis must be a reasonable one, sufficient to create a doubt of the guilt of the accused.</p> <p>3. Same. Homicide. Self-defense.</p> <p>A man may anticipate the action of his adversary, and slay him, when to strike in anticipation is necessary to self-defense, but this principle should not be given in charge to the jury in a case of homicide, except where the evidence is calculated to create the belief that, but for the timely action of the accused, he would have been the victim of his adversary.</p> <p>4. Practice. Multiplying imsb-uctions.</p> <p>It is not error in a court to refuse to multiply instructions in a case on the same principle of law.</p> <p>5. Criminal Law. Homicide. Threats. Proof. Instructions.</p> <p>In the trial of a person indicted for murder, it is proper for the court to refuse instructions to the jury in reference to threats made by the deceased against the life of the accused, and communicated to him before the homicide, where there is nothing in the conduct of the deceased, at the time of the killing, to excite in the accused any apprehension of a design on the part of the deceased to put his threats into execution. And proof of the threats, in such a case, is unimportant and immaterial.</p> <p>6. Same. Homicide. Charge against accused not denied. Evidence.</p> <p>Where a m

Judges: Campbell

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.