State v. Ariel

Citations

• 38 S.C. 221
• 16 S.E. 779
• 1893 S.C. LEXIS 45

Syllabus

<p>1. Homicide — Malice.—The trial judge, in a murder case, after stating to the jury some circumstances which would be evidence of malice, said, “Now, if there are no such external evidences, you will imply malice from the act itself.” Held, that in this there was error, as the jury might have understood the charge to mean that, in the absence of the circumstances stated, they should imply malice.</p> <p>2. Ibid. — Ibid.—And, moreover, malice is not to be implied from the mere act of killing, where all the circumstances of the homicide are proved, as iu this case.</p> <p>3. Ibid. — Charging Juries. — The judge having charged that a man wrongfully assailed may strike, not only to save his own life, but, also, to save himself from some grievous bodily harm, the jury could not have been misled by his other limited statement, that a man so assailed may strike to save Ms life.</p> <p>4. Ibid. — -Ibid.—Case Criticised. — In charging that one assailed may not take the life of his adversary, unless there is “no other way of saving himself,” there was no error. This case distinguished from State v, Jones, 29 S. 0., 236.</p> <p>5. Ibid.' — Self-Defence.—In instructing the jury that they must be satisfied of the existence of the facts necessary to sustain a plea of self-defence before they could give the accused the benefit of such plea, the trial judge did not err, as his charge did not require the jury to be so satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.</p> <p>6. Ibid. — Ibid.-—Reasonable Doubt — Case Criticised. — The accused is not required to establish his plea of self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Bodie, 33 S. C., 132, approved.</p>