Monts v. StateMonts v. State
The appellant was adjudged guilty of murder in the first degree, and his punishment was fixed at imprisonment for life. The victim was Bob Donaldson. The theory pressed for the prosecution was that of a legally inexcusable homicide, by lying in wait and shooting Donaldson аs he traveled along a public road. There was evidence tending to support that theory. The defendant sought to justify under the doctrine of self-defense. On the dеfendant’s own testimony, it is a matter of at least serious doubt that full, cautious consideration might resolve against him, whether he was of the class entitled to invoke that dоctrine for his exoneration. However, the solution of the questions presentеd for review does not require a decision on that matter. There was testimony fоr the prosecution tend
In this connection testimony was adduced to the effect that two sets of gun. wads were in or by the roadway, one further up оr down than the other. All the evidence was to the effect that two shots from a shotgun were fired by defendant. These questions, eliciting the answers quoted, were propounded by the solicitor to the witness Yeager, who testified as to the locatiоns of the Avads: What was the line or range of them [Avads] from the road?” The ansAver was: “Well, one ranged doAAm the road, and one ranged up.” “Where did they [wads] range from?” Thе answer Avas: “From the fence.” “How was that twig and the crack — the large crack — as to the level of the tAvo ?” The answer was: “Yes, sir; they Avere on the level.” The оbjection’s particular point was that an opinion or conclusion of thе witness was invoked by the questions. Motions to exclude the ansAvers rested on the like nоtion. All were overruled. The question first quoted was ansAvered in a previously propounded question which, as Avell as the ansAver thereto, were not objected tо. The second quoted question would seem, if taken literally, to call for a resрonse that could not, from the fact alone of the presence of thе wadding at the points stated in the rokd, be
Charge 1 was well refused. It was faulty, if not otherwise, in omitting to hypothesize defendant’s honest belief, that he was, when he shot, in peril. No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.