194 So. 857 | Ala. | 1940
The certiorari sought review of the decision by the Court of Appeals in Charlie Howard v. State of Alabama,
We are in accord with the decision rendered. It is perhaps unnecessary to add *275 thereto. However, it is urged that refused charges present error.
Refused charges 1 and 6 are fully covered by the oral charge and the opinion of the Court of Appeals. This was sufficient. Orr v. State,
Refused charge 9 as set out in the record is incomplete by the omission of the material word "suffering."
Refused charge 15 was properly refused as not fully stating the material elements of self defense.
The authorities in this and other jurisdictions are collected in 18 A.L.R. p. 1287, as supporting the rule, as follows:
"The rule that one is not bound to retreat if he believes, on reasonable grounds, that his life is in imminent danger, is somewhat restricted in some jurisdictions, and it is held that, although a person believes on reasonable grounds that his life is in imminent danger, he must retreat as far as he reasonably can before taking the life of his assailant. But, if the danger is so imminent that there is no probable means of escape, he is justified in standing his ground, and, if necessary, slaying his assailant.
"Alabama. — Henderson v. State (1884)
There was no error in refusing charge 15. The subject was later touched in Kuykendall v. Edmondson,
The subject was later discussed by this court in Walker v. State,
"Charges of the nature, if not in the identical language of this charge 4, have been considered by this court in several cases. In the case of Goodwin v. State,
"Going back to our statement made above that when properly considered it does not in fact ignore the doctrine of retreat, it does not expressly refer to it, and therefore may be refused without error, as having a misleading tendency when the circumstances make the duty of retreat a question for the jury to be ascertained from the evidence and especially when the court has otherwise instructed the jury on the several matters embraced in the charge."
The petition for certiorari is denied.
ANDERSON, C. J., and BROWN and KNIGHT, JJ., concur. *276