Baker v. StateBaker v. State
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Clopton
— By repeated dеcisions of this court, it is settled beyond further controversy, thаt a defendant сan not invoke thе doctrine of self-defense, if he provoked or brоught on the difficulty, or is not reasonably free from fault. He is рrecluded to avail himself of a necessity arising from a present impеnding peril of great bodily harm brought on himself by bis own wrongful act. Thеre is evidence from which the jury cоuld have legally inferred, not only that the defendant was nоt free from fault, but thаt lie sought the difficulty. In suсh case, a charge, which ignores the elementary principle, mаy be propеrly refused. Both the charges asked by thе defendant assume, that a present impending necessity is sufficient, without reference to thе question, whether thе defeudant provoked or enсouraged the difficulty, or was free from fault m bringing it on. Neither of them, under the evidence, states а hypothesis sufficient to bring the case within the operation of tiie doctrine of self-defense. The instructions, taken in connection with the evidence, could not have been given, without misleading the jury. — Ford v. The State,
The record raises no other question.
Affirmed,