Acers v. United States
The exceptions to this charge are taken in the careless way which prevails in the Western District of Arkansas.
In a trial for assault with intent to kill, a charge which distinguishes between the assault and the intent to kill, and charges, specifically that each must be proved, that the intent can only be found from the circumstances of the transaction, pointing out things which tend to disclose the real intent, is not objectionable.
[p389] There is no error in defining a deadly weapon to be "a weapon with which death may be easily and readily produced; anything, no matter what it is, whether it is made for the purpose of destroying animal life, or whether it was not made by man at all, or whether it was made by him for some other purpose, if it is a weapon, or if it is a thing by which death can be easily and readily produced, the law recognizes it as a deadly weapon."
With reference to the matter of justifying injury done in self-defence by reason of the presence of danger, a charge which says that it must be a present danger, "of great injury to the person injured, that would maim him, or that would be permanent in its character, or that might produce death," is not an incorrect statement.
The same may be said of the instructions in reference to self-defence based on an apparent danger.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. A. H. Garland and Mr. R. C. Garland for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Dickinson for defendants in error.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse