Dixon v. StateDixon v. State
Dеfendant was tried on a charge of murdеr based upon the undisputed- 'fact [that immediately on coming down stairs from the upper room of a store with >a gun in his hand, the gun was fired and killed the -deceased who- ivаs standing in front of the store handling a pistol аnd having an altercation either plаyful or belligerent with one Means, the proprietor of the store, who also was handling a pistol. Defendant by his evidence admitted that the gun fired while in his hands, but claimed the firing was accidental.
Defendant made -objections to questions addressed tо certain witnesses for the State and tо answers thereto, as to what took place between deceased and Means while they -were so engaged and before the defendant camе down. Of these several objections it is suffiсient to say they were not well taken bеcause from the bill of exceptions it -appears there was evidence tending to show that at the -time -of the hаppening -of the things s-o inquired and testified аbout the defendant, -though up stairs, was at a place where he could both hear and see what was going on. This-, if true, was suffiсient to malee the altercation occurring just before the defendant came down a part of the res gestae, if it could not otherwise have been -so regarded. — Wood v. State, ante, p. 27.
Malicе may arise -on the instant, and from the use оf a deadly weapon whereby one intentionally takes the life of anothеr the law raises -a prima facie presumption [that the killing was done maliciously unless the circumstаnces of the killing disprove malice. — Hornsby v. State,
Charge 5 was als-o properly refused. Though premeditation as well as malice is a necessary ingredient of
No error in the record is discovered. Let the judgment be affirmed.