Dilburn v. State
Dilburn v. State
Opinion of the Court
“He [the defendant] would not be justified in using a deadly weapon if struck by tbe fist, or any other assault which would not likely cause serious bodily harm.”
This was in effect charging the jury that under the evidence the defendant was ’ not justified in using a deadly weapon, and that the blow struck by the fists was not likely to cause serious bodily harm, which was the very question then being submitted to the ju *372 ry. The rule is that the killing of one who is the assailant mjist be under' a reasonable apprehension of loss of life or of great bodily harm, and the danger must appear to be so imminent at the moment of the assault as to present no alternative of escaping its consequences except by resisting. Scales v. State, 96 Ala. 77, 11 South. 121. It was said in Shorter’s Case, 2 N. Y. 194, 51 Am. Dec. 286, “When a man is struck with the naked hand, and has no reason to apprehend a design to do him great bodily harm, he must not return the blow with a dangerous weapon,” and this expression was quoted with approval in the 'Scales Case, supra.
For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Dilburn v. State.
- Cited By
- 7 cases
- Status
- Published