People v. Goodwin — 1 Wheel. Cr. Cas. 253

Majority

p. 253

March Session, 1820, Hon. C. D. Colden, Mayor.

The People vs. Robert M. Goodwin.

Headnote

Where th? intention is to wound, tW aot tok.lll,an<i danger of life °lyba°nd death ensue,it may be manslaughter, alceased struck the first blow, J"^counter between two; if a dagger fall from the hand of tlie Prison" er,and he was not defending [o^ofnfe0™ great person--Just^Tpprehension, and

Manslaughter.

CASE.

Robert M. Goodwin was arraigned and tried on an indictment for manslaughter, for killing James on the 22d_day of December, 1819. The facts of the case were as follows : The deceased and the prisoner had a previous dispute, and on the day laid in the indictment, they met each other, by accident, m Broadway. The pns- . oner, m company with a friend, was walking for pleasure, and carried a sword cane in his hand. As they passed each other, the prisoner turned around andjiointed the cane at the deceased, and said, “ That is a rascal and a villain.” or “ There is a coward and a scoundrel.” The deceased stopped, turned around, and walked up to the prisoner, who had walked along the course he was going a few steps, and replied, “ What is that you say?” and struck the prisoner with his fist over the shoulder: a scuffle ensued, the prisoner striking the deceased with the but . - , , i i , end oí the cane over the head two or three times, and the deceased returning the blows with his, fist. During the ° rencounter, the sword or dagger was, either intentionally or by accident, separated from the scabbard, and the prisoner had, at one part of the affray, the blade part in his hand. The deceased retreated about eight paces, and fell; he was followed up by the prisoner, who continued to strike

p. 254

the deceased fall upon it, from a blow th^pvisoner^ wound,it may be manslaughter^[1]

the deceased with the handle of the dagger. The scuffle ^ere terminated; the deceased got up, b,ut immediately fell and expired, and the dagger was found lying at the place where he first fell,

The question was, whether this was manslaughter or . n°t'

after recapitulating the principal points °f the testimony, and a brief analysis of the law of manslaughter, ruled the following

POINTS OF LAW:

1st. “ The law of homicide, and of course the law of “ manslaughter, is the same as it was in this State on the “ 19th of April, 1775, so far as it has not been altered by “ acts of the legislature, subsequent^, to the adoption of “ the State Constitution. And the Legislature has passed “ no act upon the subject that can affect this case, except “ in relation to the punishment, which the Jury ought not “ to take into consideration.”

2d. “ If the prisoner intentionally gave the mortal “ wound while he was fighting with the deceased, and the “ prisoner was not in danger of life or great bodily harm, “ the killing may be manslaughter, though death was not “ intended, and though the deceased struck the first blow.”

3d. “ If the dagger fell from the hand of the prisoner, “ or he threw it down after it was unsheathed, and he had 11 used it to beat the deceased, and while the prisoner was “ fighting! with the deceased ; and if; while the prisoner “ continued to fight with the deceased, and the prisoner

p. 255

■“ was not necessarily defending himself from the loss of £t life, or great personal harm, or just apprehension there- “ of, the deceased fell upon the dagger in consequence of “ a blow or violence offered by the prisoner, and so receiv- “ ed the mortal wound, it may be

4th. “ That although the wound be charged in the in- “ dictment to have been given with a weapon held in the “ hand of the prisoner, yet he may be convicted of the “ offence charged in the indictment, though the Jury should “ believe he came to his death in the manner last sup- “ posed.”*