White v. State
White v. State
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
It was competent for the state to prove that the appellant had been guilty of burglary on the night preceding the homicide, because:
1. That fact tended to show that the deceased had the right, to arrest the appellant without a warrant.
2. It tended to show that appellant knew why he was. sought to be arrested.
The pursuit of appellant was a fresh pursuit, within the-meaning of § 3026, code 1880. What is fresh pursuit must be determinable by circumstances, and where, as in this case,, a felony is committed at night, discovered in the morning: and the officer immediately follows and overtakes the felon,, who is attempting to escape, it is not necessary that he shall have á warrant for his arrest; and where, as here, the-fleeing felon is commanded to surrender, but refuses so to do, and runs away, and, being overtaken, kills the person seeking to-arrest Mm, he cannot invoke the principle of self-defense.
This case, in all its facts, is strikingly similar to People v. Pool, 27 Cal., 572, in which the questions here decided were, involved.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- John White v. State
- Cited By
- 13 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Arrest without Warrant. Fresh pursuit. Gode 1880, § 8026. Where a burglary is committed at night, and, being discovered the next morning, an officer and others immediately follow, and, shortly coming upon the felon in hiding, he flees, and is followed, this is a fresh pursuit within the meaning of § 3026, code 1880, and a warrant for the arrest is not necessary. 2. Same. Resisting arrest. Homicide. Self-defense. In such case, where the fugitive, being followed, is commanded by one of the pursuers, who is in_ advance of the officer, to surrender, and he refuses, and, when overtaken, kills such pursuer, 'who, at the time, presents a pistol, and seeks to arrest him, ho is guilty of murder, and cannot invoke the doctrine of self-defense. 3. Same. Canse of arrest. Showing commission of felony. In such case, it is competent for the state to piove that the defendant had committed the burglary the preceding night, as tending to show that the arrest could lawfully be made on pursuit without warrant, and that the defendant knew why he was sought to be arrested.