At three o’clock in the morning of the 11th of October, defendant was in bed in the house of one Manuela Sanchez, in a room adjoining that of Manuela and her daughtеr. Deceased, having ridden a horse to a point about two hundred yards from the hоuse, came to the outer door and (as would seem) demanded admittancе, which was refused by the woman Manuela, alleged to have been at one timе his mistress; whereupon—as claimed by defendant—deceased burst open the dоor, and at once leaped upon the defendant, who was still in bed, and commenced stabbing him with a knife. Defendant was badly cut in several places. The testimony for the prosecution, however, if unexplained, would leave it doubtful whether deceased was not fired upon before he commenced to use his knife. Thus, Cayetana Bar rejón : “ I saw deceased, Eugenio Morales, at a distance оf seventy or eighty yards. He walked some distance and sat down. I heard the first shot in Manuela Sanchez’s
If defendant killed deceased, or wаs present, aiding, or abetting the killing, it was certainly important that the jury should be informed of the affray in the Sanchez house, and whether the defendant or deceasеd was there the assailant. If defendant was attacked by deceased, with a dеadly weapon, when in bed in his own room, that circumstance was a very grave оne to be considered when the jury were determining whether defendant had been provoked, and the degree of provocation, and whether sufficient time had elapsed for defendant’s passion to cool. The defendant was found guilty of murder, and any evidence tending to prove that the original assault was by the deсeased with a deadly weapon, had a bearing upon the question whether the offense was murder or manslaughter.
John Crawford, a witness for the defense, was askеd, “ State whether you ever had any conversation with deceased, relative to an.y difficulty that he had with defendant, when it was, and what was said, if anything ? ” Objected to. The Court—“Unless you can show that these threats were communicated to defendant, the testimony is not admissible.”
Defendant, by his counsel, for the purpose of showing the intention of the deceased to attack the defendant, and to show the intent with which Mоrales resorted to the house of Manuela, and also his feelings toward defendant, offered to prove by John Crawford, a competent witness, then upon thе witness stand, duly sworn as such, that prior to the difficulty between the defendant and Moralеs, the deceased made threats against the life of the defendant, stating that hе “ intended to kill defendant.” Objected to, and the Court refused to permit the witness to testify, to which ruling of the Court the defendant then and there excepted.
This was error. In People v. Arnold,
Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.
Boss, J., and McKee, J., concurred.