Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[graphic]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

§ 194. Computation of time.

§ 195. Effect of change in statutory period.

§ 196. Effect of conviction of lesser offense than that charged.

§ 197. When statute commences to run-In general.

[merged small][ocr errors]

199. § 200.

§ 201. § 202.

[ocr errors][merged small]

Continuing offenses.

Conspiracy.

Embezzlement, false pretenses, fraud, etc.

Rape, seduction, bigamy, abandonment, etc.
Bastardy.

§ 203. Exceptions to and interruption of statute-In general.

§ 204. § 205. § 206.

- Absence from state; nonresidence.

Concealment of perpetrator or of fact of crime, etc.

- Persons fleeing from justice.

§ 207. When prosecution is deemed commenced-In general.

[merged small][ocr errors]

Invalid indictment or complaint; amendment, substitution, continuance, etc.

§ 209. Waiver and estoppel.

XI. IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION

§ 210. Immunity of accomplices testifying for state-In general.

§ 211.Extent of right and forfeiture thereof.

§ 212. Statutory immunity of persons giving self-incriminating testimony-In

general.

§ 213. Extent of immunity-Offenses and prosecution to which immunity

[blocks in formation]

§ 215.

§ 216.

[ocr errors]

As dependent upon proceedings in which testimony is given.

Effect on pending and subsequent prosecutions.

§ 217. In general.

XII. INCONSISTENT DEFENSES

[blocks in formation]

§ 160. Public authority. It may be laid down as an undoubted principle that a person who does an act under valid public sanction or authority, and without exceeding or abusing such authority, is guilty of no crime, though the same act would be a crime if committed without such authority. Some of the plainest cases are the execution of a criminal by the proper officer in a proper manner under a valid conviction and sentence for a capital offense; 2 authorized arrest and imprisonment of criminals or persons accused of crime; and the killing of a person necessarily in order to arrest for a felony or to prevent an escape. What would otherwise be a common nuisance may also be justified on this ground. And where one was prosecuted for illegally taking fish, it was held that authority from the fish commissioner to take them for him for the purpose of obtaining spawn was a complete defense.

[ocr errors]

In this connection, however, it must be borne in mind that the laws of a country have no extraterritorial effect, and cannot be relied on as a defense to a criminal prosecution for acts committed beyond its jurisdiction."

§ 161. Domestic authority. A father or other person standing in loco parentis has authority to give reasonable correction to his

1 See State v. Knoxville, 12 Lea (Tenn.) 146; Reg. v. Lesley, Bell C. C. 220, 8 Cox C. C. 269.

2 See § 688, infra.

3 See § 554, infra.

4 See § 691, infra.

5 See § 1299 et seq., infra.

6 State v. McDonald, 109 Wis. 506, 85 N. W. 502.

7 This is well illustrated by an English case in which the defendant was convicted on an indictment charging him with assaulting the prosecutors on the high seas, and imprisoning and detaining them. It appeared that the prosecutors were Chilian subjects, and had been ordered by the government of Chili to be banished from that country to England. The defendant, being master of an English merchant vessel lying in the territorial waters of Chili, contracted

with the Chilian government to take the prosecutors from Valparaiso to Liverpool, and they were accordingly brought on board his vessel by the officers of the government, and carried by him to Liverpool under his contract. It was held that, although the conviction could not be supported for the assault and imprisonment in the Chilian waters, it must be sustained for that which was done out of the Chilian territory. Although the defendant was justified in receiving the prosecutors on board his vessel in Chili, that justification ceased when he passed the line of Chilian jurisdiction, and, as his wrongful detention thereafter was on an English vessel, he was guilty of an offense punishable by English law. Reg. v. Lesley, Bell C. C. 220, 8 Cox C. C. 269.

See generally § 276, infra.

child, and in so doing is not guilty of an assault and battery, nor of felonious homicide if death ensues without his fault, provided such correction does not exceed the bounds of moderation.

§ 162. Prevention of offenses. It is not only the right, but the duty, of every person, whether an officer or merely a private person, to prevent the commission of a felony, and acts done for this purpose, if necessary, are justifiable. If a felony can be prevented in no other way, even a homicide will be justifiable.10 But, as a rule, homicide to prevent the commission of a misdemeanor or of a bare trespass is not justifiable,11 though an assault and battery may be justified on such ground.12

§ 163. Defense of person or property-Self-defense. It is an elementary principle of the common law that a man has the right to defend his life, liberty, and property. This right is not only given to him by the common law, but in many states it is guaranteed by the declaration of rights or constitution, so that he cannot be deprived of it by the legislature. Speaking generally, "the right of defense is the right to do whatever apparently is reasonably necessary to be done in defense under the circumstances of the case." 18 As a rule, acts done in self-defense do not constitute an assault 14 or mayhem.15 And one who is assaulted in such a way as to put him in danger of death or great bodily harm may even take his assailant's life if necessary to save himself.16 The right of selfdefense also exists as against attacks by dogs and other animals.17

§ 164. - Defense of others. There are many cases in which a person may be justified in interfering in defense of others than himself. If a man is assaulted by another, his servant may interfere in his defense, and vice versa, and the same is true of husband and wife, parent and child, and brothers and sisters.18 Any person may lawfully interfere, and even take life, to prevent a felony attempted by

8 See § 429, infra.

9 See § 669, infra.

10 See § 689, infra.

11 See §§ 690, 692, infra.

12 See § 428, infra.

18 Aldrich v. Wright, 53 N. H. 398,

16 Am. Rep. 339.

14 See § 430, infra.

15 See § 831, infra.

16 See § 699 et seq., infra.

17 So as a rule a person cannot be convicted of malicious mischief (see § 842, infra) or cruelty to animals (see § 853, infra) for killing or injur ing an animal in self-defense.

18 See §§ 722, 723, infra.

violence or surprise.19 And the right of a person to defend his dwelling house extends to guests in the house and to servants of the

[blocks in formation]

§ 165.- Defense of property. A man not only has a right to defend his life and his person, but he also has a right to defend his property.21 He cannot take another's life 22 or inflict grievous bodily harm upon another person merely in defense of property, but he may use necessary means short of this, and his acts in such necessary defense will not be a crime either at common law or under the statutes.2 28 He may also do what apparently is reasonably necessary to protect his property against animals.24

§ 166. Duress or compulsion-In general. A person doing or joining in the doing of an act which would otherwise constitute a crime may escape criminal responsibility if he is compelled to do it by threats or coercion which put him in fear of immediate death or great bodily harm in case he refuses.25 So a person who joins with others in a rebellion or in other treasonable acts is not criminally responsible therefor, if, during the whole time he is with them, he is compelled to remain and take part by threats of death or great bodily harm.26 And the same is true where a person is so compelled to go with a mob and to assist in the destruction of property, or to join in

19 See § 699 et seq., infra.

20 See § 721, infra.

21 Aldrich v. Wright, 53 N. H. 398,

16 Am. Rep. 339.

22 See § 720, infra.

23 See § 721, infra.

24 So, as a rule, a person cannot be convicted of malicious mischief (see § 842, infra) or cruelty to animals (see § 853, infra) for killing or injuring another's domestic animals in defense of his poultry, or domestic animals, or crops. Nor can he be convicted of violating the game laws for killing wild animals out of season under such circumstances. See § 453, infra.

25 Steph. Dig. Cr. Law, art. 31.
See also the following decisions:
California. People v. Martin, 13
Cal. App. 96, 108 Pac. 1034.

Georgia. McCoy v. State, 78 Ga.

490, 3 S. E. 768; Beal v. State, 72 Ga. 200; Henderson v. State, 5 Ga. App. 495, 63 S. E. 535.

Indiana. Ross v. State, 169 Ind. 388, 82 N. E. 781.

Michigan. People v. Merhige, 212 Mich. 601, 180 N. W. 418; People v. Repke, 103 Mich. 459, 61 N. W. 861. Montana. State V. Fisher, 23 Mont. 540, 59 Pac. 919.

Rhode Island. State v. Nargashian, 26 R. I. 299, 58 Atl. 953, 106 Am. St. Rep. 715, 3 Ann. Cas. 1026.

Texas. Penal Code, art. 44; Burton v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. 196, 101 S. W. 226; Stanley v. State, 16 Tex. App. 392.

Washington. State v. Moretti, 66 Wash. 537, 120 Pac. 102.

26 See United States v. Vigol, 2 Dall. 346, Fed. Cas. No. 16, 621, 1 L. Ed. 409; United States v. Greiner, 4

« AnteriorContinuar »