State v. HippState v. Hipp
The defendant’s plea of not guilty placed upon the State the burden of proving her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The plea permitted her to justify the killing, if she could, by showing the act was done in self-defense. The evidence for the State was sufficient to go to the jury on the charge of murder in the second degree, but did it not also raise the question of sеlf-defense?
The State introduced the defendant’s admission аs evidence in the case. The defendant told her story from the stand. That, too, was evidence in the case. Boiled down to its essentials, her evidence paints this picture: Thе deceased, a strong man, had assaulted and beatеn her repeatedly. Three days before the homicidе he had a butcher knife at her back. On the fatal day he threatened to pull every hair in her head out and choke her to death. Upon his return after being gone for a few hоurs, he began an assault on her while she was asleep. Shе tried unsuccessfully to get away from him and to go to her mothеr’s, but after twisting her arm and choking her, he got the rifle, threatenеd to kill her, and pointed the gun at her heart. He struck her on thе side of the head, stunned her, and when she realized what had happened, he was on the floor, dead. She callеd the officers.
It is neither the function of the trial court nor оf this Court to say whether the defendant’s story is true or false. That is thе jury’s' function. “There is in this evidence an inference of self-defense which is not cancelled out by the contradictory evidence of the State, even her own declarations to others that the actual shooting was accidental. In
her own evidence she attributed it to a fear, which neither humanity nor reason may disallow, and of which the law itself is considerate. Taking all the evidence together, the inference that the defendant acted under a reasоnable apprehension of great bodily harm cannot be said to be based on a mere scintilla.”
S. v. Greer,
If the defendаnt’s 'story is to be believed, she was not at fault in bringing on the difficulty. Therеfore, the door to the sanctuary of self-defense wаs not closed to her. Even though a frail- woman, her natural reaction to an assault would be to defend herself. The instinct of self-preservation is strong in most creatures of this eаrth. Even a mouse will bite the hand that squeezes it. The question of self-defense arises on this evidence and only the jury can answer it. The circumstances under which one may fight and, if necessary, kill in self-defense are clearly set forth in an opiniоn by the present
Chief Justice
in the case of
S. v. Robinson,
The learned trial judge charged the jury: “Beсause of remarks made by counsel in the arguments, I instruct you, gеntlemen, that there is no evidence of self-defense in this case. There is no evidence of a justifiable shooting or killing of Clayton Hipp.” The instruction is the basis of defendant’s Exception No. 40 and is preserved by Assignment of Error No. 13. The exception is well taken. It was the duty of the trial court to submit to the jury the question of self-defense under proper instructions. For the error in failing to do so, the defendant is entitled to a
New trial.