People v. Dollor

Citations

• 89 Cal. 513
• 26 P. 1086
• 1891 Cal. LEXIS 846

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law—Assault with Deadly Weapon—Self-defense — Apparent Necessity — Instruction. — Upon the trial of one accused of an assault with a deadly weapon, an instruction to the jury, upon the subject of self-defense, that if they find from the evidence that the defendant did make any assault with a deadly weapon, and that he did it not in self-defense, they should find him guilty, but that if they find that he made the assault in necessary self-defense, in order to prevent the party he was accused to have assaulted from committing a violent assault upon him, then he is not guilty, does not exclude the consideration of apparent necessity; and if the evidence does not disclose any question as between real and apparent danger, and no specific instruction is requested as to apparent necessity, the instruction given is not ground for reversal.</p> <p>Id. — “Necessary Self-defense” — Reasonable Apprehension of Danger. — “ Necessary self-defense ” sufficient to excuse a man for committing an assault includes every case where there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and where the circumstances are sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable man.</p> <p>Id. — Striking out Answer Previously Given without Objection — Immaterial Error. — The refusal of the court to strike out an answer of a witness for the prosecution, on his redirect examination, that he had known the defendant “since he was at San Quentin,” is not a material error, where the witness had said the same thing on his cross-examination by the defendant’s counsel, without any objection being made to it.</p>