State v. Tribett

Citations

• 74 Wash. 125
• 132 P. 875
• 1913 Wash. LEXIS 2008

Syllabus

<p>Homicide — Sele-Deeense—Evidence—Admissibility — Corroboration. Where defendant,- a street car conductor, claimed self-defense in a killing by shooting in the nighttime at an isolated location at the end of the car line, and had testified that the father of the deceased started to get off the car at a certain place, calling to his son, but after consultation between them and threats to “get him” at the end of the line, they rode past their destination and attacked him instead of leaving the car when the end of the line was called, the defendant should be allowed to show that passengers for their destination usually left the ear where the father started to get off, as it tended to corroborate him and show their motive in remaining on the car; also, the reputation of the line for lawlessness, his knowledge thereof, and the isolation of the place, as tending to show whether he acted as a reasonably prudent man in defending himself.</p> <p>Homicide — Defenses—Defense of Son — Instructions. In a trial for the killing of a father and-son, in which the defense claimed that the son was the aggressor, an instruction that the father had a right to come to the defense of his son if, seeing him assaulted, he believed him in danger of great personal injury, should have been qualified by an instruction that, if the son was himself the aggressor, the right to come to his defense remained in abeyance until the son had in good faith attempted to withdraw from the conflict which he had brought on; and failure to make the qualification, where there is no other instruction upon the right of the father to come to the defense of the son, is not cured by other correct instructions on the question of self-defense.</p>