209 Pa. 274 | Pa. | 1904
As the defense was a total denial of the killing, based on the claim of an alibi, the points in regard to self-defense were irrelevant. But in any view, even if the jury should find, as they did against the alibi and that the prisoner was there and did the killing, the points were properly answered. The first point and the answer of the court cover substantially the whole alleged error, and are as follows :
“ That whoever did the killing on the night in question, it was not necessary that he be in actual imminent peril of life or of great 'bodily harm before he may slay his assailant. It is sufficient if in good faith he has a reasonable belief founded on facts as they appear to him at the time that he. is in such imminent peril, even though it should afterwards appear that he was mistaken. The law will not hold a man to absolute correctness of judgment under such trying circumstances.”
To this the court answered : “ There is one very essential ingredient that is omitted from this point and that is that he had no other means of escape, which the Supreme Court has said is necessary to justify the affirmation of a point couched in these words ; and therefore, it is negatived.”
This was in entire accord with our cases. See Com. v. Drum, 58 Pa. 9, and Com. v. Breyessee, 160 Pa. 451.
In the present case, one witness, the man Burns at whom the shot was apparently fired, had testified that he had told the man who fired the shot, whoever he was (but identifying the
Judgment affirmed.
