State v. BennettState v. Bennett
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Sherwin
*714
In its seventh instruction the court told the jury “ that the law presumes a man to intend the reasonable and natural consequences of any act intentionally done, and can seldom be proven by direct еvidence. So, if you find from the evidence in this case that the defendant shot the contents of a revolver toward thе witness George Colw’ell, he will be presumed to have intended the reasonable and natural results, of such shooting, ‘unless аll the evidence in the case raises in your mind a reasonable doubt of such intent.” The instruction is assailed, on the ground that it ignored the fact that the intent is the gist of the offense charged, and because the rule does not apply in any сase where proof of a specific intent is necessary, or in a case where the shooting is admitted but is claimed to have been done in self-defense. Neither of the objections are sound, however. A specific intent mаy be proved by circumstantial as well as by direct and positive evidence; and, where it is proven or admitted that thе defendant committed an act which would be unlawful unless justified, the specific intent may be inferred or presumed from the unlаwful act. State v. Jones, 70 Iowa, 505; State v. Woodward, 84 Iowa, 172. The inference or presumption is not conclusive, but it is to be considered with the other evidence in detеrmining the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The instruction is criticised in other respects, but, considered in connection with the others given, there is no foundation for the complaint.
In instructing on this branch of the case the court said that thе defendant acting in self-defense ’ “ must not use more force than is necessary nor use dangerous or deadly weapons or attempt to kill the assailant, unless the danger is imminent and the necessity to use such weapon is urgent and could nоt be avoided by retiring from such danger.” The appellant contends that the general rule that a person assaulted must retreat, if he may safely do so before taking the life of his assailant or inflicting a great bodily injury upon him, is not appliсable to this case, because the defendant was on his own premises and was therefore not bound to retreаt from the threatened assault of Colwell. We think the appellant’s contention is sound. In the earlier cases in this cо-urt it was held that thqre was no duty to retreat where one was assailed with a deadly weapon. See Tweedy v. State, 5 Iowa, 433. While in the later adjudications it has been held that such duty exists under ordinary circum-. stances. . See State v. Jones, 89 Iowa, 182, and cases, cited therein. But none of thе latter cases decide the exact point involved here, which is, briefly, whether a person while on his own premisеs must retreat from a felonious assault. It is the universal rule that the dwelling house is the castle; and that no retreat is necеssary therein, and we see no1 sound reason for holding that a greater obligation exists when the accused is on his own рremises where he has a right to be and which constitute a part of his residence and home.
*716It is true that the law out of tеnderness for human life and the frailties of human nature will not permit the taking of it to repel a mere trespass, but a man оf ordinary courage who is without fault and on his own premises will not retreat until absolutely compelled to do so, and hе should not, under such circumstances, be obliged to fly from an assailant to receive the protection of the lаw. The principle here announced was applied by this court in State v. Thompson, 71 Iowa, 503, a case where the defendant killed an assailant who had invaded his premises for the purpose of . doing him bodily harm. ■ It is there said, after reviewing the facts: “ And he had a right tо stand by his fence and contend that his premises should not be invaded; and, when assaulted and wounded as he was, he had the right to strike back, if it appeared to him as a reasonable man to be necessary to protect himself from furthеr great bodily injury.” See, also, State v. Evenson, 122 Iowa, 88; State v. Goering, 106 Iowa, 636; State v. Shea, 104 Iowa, 724; State v. Middleham, 62 Iowa, 150. The rule had also been announced in the following cases: Beard v. United States, 158 U. S. 550 (15 Sup. Ct. 962, 39 L. Ed. 1086); Foster v. Territory (Ariz.), 56 Pac. Rep. 738; Perkins v. State, 78 Wis. 551 (47 N. W. 827); State v. Cushing, 14 Wash. 527 (45 Pac. Rep. 145, 53 Am. St. Rep. 883); Baker v. Commonwealth, 93 Ky. 302 (19 S. W. 975); Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80 (26 Am. Rep. 52); Erwin v. State, 29 Ohio St. 186 (23 Am. Rep. 733); Williams v. State, 30 Tex. App. 430 (17 S. W. 1071).
Other errors are argued, but as they are not likely to arise оn a retrial of the case, we need give them no further attention. For the errors pointed out the judgment is reversed and the case remanded. Reversed and remamded.