Skip to main content

State v. Pruett

Citations

  • 24 N.M. 68
  • 172 P. 1044

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Where there is evidence tending to show that deceased made threats against the defendant which were communicated to him, and that the deceased brought about the difficulty and was in fault at the time of the killing, the court must, upon request, instruct the jury upon the subject of such threats.</p> <p>P. 7Q</p> <p>2. An instruction defining the essential elements of an indictment as to manslaughter, and which omits to state that the killing must have been unlawful and not justifiable, and which is followed by another instruction telling the jury that if they believe from the evidence “that each and all of the above material allegations of the indictment have been established beyond a reasonable doubt” they should then find defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter, is erroneous.</p> <p>P. 71</p> <p>3. A defendant on trial for homicide who relies upon self defense for acquittal is not required to produce evidence which will satisfy the jury that he acted in self-defence, hut only such evidence as will raise in the minds of the jurors a reasonable doubt as to whether he acted in necessary self-defense.</p> <p>P. 72</p> <p>4. Instruction relative to limitations upon the right- of self-defense.</p> <p>P. 73</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding jury instructions erroneous which “authorized the conviction of the appellant even though he was justified in killing the deceased”
  • affirming the trial court’s use of a jury instruction containing the “familiar and oft-approved statement that the law of self-defense does not imply the right to attack, nor will it permit acts done in retaliation for revenge”
  • “[T]he law of self-defense does not imply the right to attack, nor will it permit acts done in retaliation for revenge----”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hanna, Parker, Roberts

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

6 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.