CARL S. KELLY, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court's refusal to give a specific self-defense instruction was not reversible error, as counsel expressed satisfaction with the instructions given.
The appellant contended that the trial court erred in refusing a requested jury instruction on self-defense. The court noted that evidence may have ju…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Self-Defense Jury Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
We have considered the contentions ably presented on behalf of appellant by counsel appointed by this court. We find no error which warrants reversal. One contention is that the trial court erred in refusing to give a requested instruction on the law of self-defense, set forth in the margin,1 or its substance. Assuming there was evidence to justify self-defense instructions, trial counsel expressed complete satisfaction with those given on the subject. In these circumstances the refusal of the one requested, though appropriate in its substance,2 is not deemed of sufficient significance to require reversal.
Affirmed.
. Evidence has been introduced which may tend to show that the defendant acted in self-defense. The defense has no burden to sustain as to this. If this evidence, when considered with all the other evidence, raises a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, he is entitled to an acquittal. He is not obliged to establish self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, or even by a preponderance of the proof. The prosecution must prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
. The instruction as requested should have been modified so as to make the second sentence thereof read: “The defense does not have the burden of proof as to this.” There is, however, the need for the evidence to raise an issue of self-defense, and this may be considered a burden of sorts, ordinarily resting upon the defense.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Dixon, 419 F.2d 288 (D.C. Cir. 1969)
-
United States v. Hardin, 443 F.2d 735 (D.C. Cir. 1970)
-
Salzman v. United States, 405 F.2d 358 (D.C. Cir. 1968)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence