Scott v. State

<p>1. Criminal law <&wkey;>448(ll) — Testimony as to appearance of deceased’s wound not inadmissible as conclusion.</p> <p>In a prosecution for murder, testimony of nonexpert witnesses, who saw deceased’s wound, that it went down, was admissible, being simply a matter of what they saw, and not calling for a conclusion or opinion.</p> <p>2. Criminal law &wkey;l 169(9) — Admission of nonexpert testimony as to direction of deceased’s wound not reversible error where other witnesses testified to same effect.</p> <p>In a prosecution for murder, admission of testimony of nonexpert witnesses, who saw deceased’s wound, that it went down, was not reversible error where other witnesses testified without objection to the same effect.</p> <p>3. Criminal law &wkey;?753(2) — Affirmative charge-for defendant properly refused where evidence conflicting.</p> <p>Where the evidence was conflicting, an affirmative charge for defendant was properly refused.</p> <p>4. Homicide <®=>300(I3) — Instruction on fear of bodily harm properly refused, as omitting question of provocation.</p> <p>In a prosecution for murder, a charge that, if deceased’s conduct was such as to reasonably lead defendant to believe deceased was about to inflict some great bodily harm on her, and, acting on such belief, she fired at and killed deceased, the jury should acquit, was properly refused, as leaving out of consideration the question as to who provoked the difficulty.</p> <p>5. Criminal law <&wkey;>829(2l) — Refusal of written charge substantially covered by court’s oral charge not error.</p> <p>The refusal of a written charge, defining degrees included in charge of first degree murdor, substantially covered by tbe court’s oral charge, was not error.</p> <p>6. Homicide &wkey;>300(l3, 15) — Charge to acquit if defendant acted on reasonable fear of bodily harm or death properly refused, as omitting freedom from fault and duty to retreat.</p> <p>In a prosecution for murder, a charge to acquit if the jury could not say beyond a reasonable doubt whether defendant acted on the reasonable belief it was necessary to shoot to save herself from great bodily harm or death was properly refused, as omitting her duty of being free from fault in bringing on the difficulty and to retreat.</p> <p>7. Homicide <&wkey;300(7) — Charge held bad as directing acquittal on facts and conclusions, irrespective of evidence.</p> <p>In a prosecution for murder, a requested charge that, if defendant was free from fault in bringing on the difficulty, and reasonably believed she was in danger of a serious assault, she had the right to shoot, and the jury should acquit, was bad, as directing acquittal predicated on certain facts and conclusions, irrespective of whether they grew out of the evidence.</p>