*1 “No,” sug- versa means vice. —and
gestion be reversed preg- negative pregnant seems
because of
nantly unconceptional. The negative and
trial of Mrs. having seen the color hair,
Kalibásh’s affirmed. should be Plaintiff
The STATE Respondent, Appellant. CASTILLO,
Pete
No.
Supreme Utah. Court of
July 23, 1969.
porch. The entered the home cab;' hurry phone told Caroline to proceeded According toward the door. pulled to Caroline out his knife and started toward Santana. *2 Jay Barney, City, Legal V. Salt Lake grabbed Caroline interceded and the knife. Assn., appellant. Defender for Defendant wrenched the knife her from hands, cutting fingers. her Defend- Gen., Romney, Atty. Vernon B. Salt Lake her, ant rah then stabbed and she from City, respondent. for left, As house. she observed defend- CALLISTER, Justice: advancing toward her brother with knife, she heard the sound a stick and appeals liis Defendant from conviction breaking. struggle There awas between' upon a of the crime of an verdict as- Santana; defendant and was 76-7-6, deadly weapon, sault with a Section cuts, stabbed, and defendant sustained some that He contends U.C.A.1953. including puncture a small wound on prejudicial by court committed error its arm, large a on forehead. bruise refusal to instruct the as to his hit him Defendant testified that Santana Early morning, in the on March from with the stick and knocked behind defendant went the home of his former floor; him to the then Santana came wife, Caroline He met at Castillo. was him the knife that had been in de- with brother, by the door Caroline’s Santana pocket. fur- had no fendant’s Defendant Gonzales, who, claims, defendant had a moments; ensuing ther recollection of the in his stick hand. Defendant testified that merely regained he that he remembered living he walked into the room. De- posi- possession of in a the knife knife, fendant was armed with a which he top pleading tion who was on himself, brought claimed he had to defend any more. hurt him with not to defendant he since feared that Santana would have a knowledge disclaimed Defendant explained that he stick. Defendant had he denied Caroline stabbed observed the stick under a couch cushion lying the lawn outside. observed her on previous aon visit. Caroline described the departed his car and subse- in Defendant broomstick, stick as half a which was used knife, police a quently disposed when poker. aas fire fur- approached Defendant officer him. Caroline, ther had conversed with admitted he beaten Caroline while brother waited on front her occasions. in In theory as stated one of
Defendant’s observed Johnson3 in a request that at those cases where requested instructions was Caroline, instructions on defendant’s of his stabbing time defendant sustained, against defending evidence engaged himself defendant’s which, by established a state of facts if upon person be- Santana assault stop by jury, adequate attempting lieved established that Caroline provocation, apparently part between lawful of de- entered acts on altercation fendant, aggravating or other of acci- facts. them and was stabbed as result misfortune; time did at no dent or In the court evaluated State Romero harm to intend do following in the defendant’s evidence cer- proffered Defendant further Caroline. terms: self-defense, all involving tain instructions ** A of the evidence review by the trial court. of which were refused an instruction on shows defense was warranted. general principle with
We
necessary self-
person acting
if
in the record
no
There is
per
injures
unintentionally
a third
defense
as
which
raise a reasonable doubt
would
son,
battery.1
guilty
assault and
appel-
he is not
which
the crimes with
to whether
*3
an instruction
However,
propriety
the
of
in self-
charged
lant
were committed
necessarily
principle is
encompassing
being
this
insuffi-
The evidence
defense.
doubt,
self-de
contingent
applicability
tendered
cient
raise such
to
properly
fense in the case.
were
on that issue
instructions
446,
Heisler, 58 N.M.
refused.
v.
State
and defendant
Both
State
raising a jury’s reasonable doubt you To warrant in convicting the de- mind as to whether a defendant accused of fendant, the your evidence must minds self-defense, a crime acted in in- tendered every exclude hypothesis reasonable oth- properly structions thereon are refused. er than that guilt of the de- say, fendant. That is to if after an en- barged
Defendant admits that he into tire comparison consideration and of all dwelling, victim’s a victim he had whom testimony you in the case can reason- previously beaten. He came armed with a ably explain given the facts in evidence trouble, knife in anticipation although ground reasonable than other ground apprehension sole was his guilt defendant, you acquit him. observation of a stick under a couch cush- ion on a occasion. He claims that he survey After a careful of the en absolutely has no recollection of vic- record, tire we are unable to conclude tim merely hypothesizes stabbed but the result of dif would have been that apparently she sustained wounds to jury ferent had the been instructed on parts body diverse of her while he was question of self-defense. After a review legitimately exercising right instructions, they of all the we find defense. adequately every phase covered of the case As this court observed in State v. Tala by the the defend raised evidence on which rico,5 entitled to have the instruct judgment ed. is af * * counsel, While the firmed.
persistently strenuously urged, self-defense, it was nevertheless ELLETT, JJ, TUCKETT and concur. evidence, and no all shadow CROCKETT, J., concurs in the re- C. and no substance. sult. The trial court instructed the HENRIOD, Justice: they convict defendant must believe from doubt, evidence, beyond I opinion involving concur in the main reasonable sticky case, particularly made without *4 assault was because excuse, cause or the defendant somewhere other than or when no considerable provocation appeared, circum- where he claim or under could his home was malig- stances which abandoned castillo. show 229, 234,
5. 57 Utah 193 P.