Hood v. State

8 Citing cases

  1. Perigo v. Embry

    Case No. 06-CV-069-JHP-PJC (N.D. Okla. Mar. 31, 2009)

    In Oklahoma, self-defense can be used to justify the taking of the life of an adversary if there is a reasonable ground to believe that one is about to suffer death or great personal injury. See Bechtel v. State, 840 P.2d 1, 6 (Okla.Crim.App. 1992) (citingHood v. State, 106 P.2d 271 (Okla.Crim.App. 1940)). Testimony on BWS can be used to understand the reasonableness of an aggressor's belief that she is in imminent danger.

  2. In re Adoption of 2017 Revisions to Okla. Unif. Jury Instructions-Criminal

    2017 OK CR 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2017)

    (OUJI-CR 8-46). Fear alone does not justify a homicide, McKee v. State, 1962 OK CR 57, 372 P.2d 243 (Okl. Cr. 1962) ; nor may a homicide be justified because of threats or insults by the decedent, Jamison v. State, 1956 OK CR 127, 304 P.2d 371 (Okl. Cr. 1956) ; Fields v. State, 1947 OK CR 126, 85 Okl. Cr. 439, 188 P.2d (1948) ; Ging v. State, 1925 OK CR 461, 31 Okl. Cr. 428, 239 P. 685 (1925) ; nor may a defendant kill and be justified when acting simply on subjective honest belief, Haines v. State, 1954 OK CR 85, 275 P.2d 347 (Okl. Cr. 1954) ; Hood v. State, 1925 OK CR 461, 70 Okl. Cr. 334, 106 P.2d 271 (1940) . Rather, a homicide is justifiable when a reasonable person would have used deadly force. Davis v. State, 2011 OK CR 29, ยถ 95, 268 P.3d 86, 114 (quoting this Instruction); Harris v. State, 1968 OK CR 223, 448 P.2d 296 (Okl. Cr. 1968) ; Jamison v. State, supra; Brown v. State, 1923 OK CR 204, 24 Okl. Cr. 161, 216 P. 944 (1923) . A homicide is also justifiable when the use of deadly force is reasonably necessary because the danger appears imminent.

  3. Bechtel v. State

    840 P.2d 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992)   Cited 51 times
    Concluding that expert was qualified to testify about battered woman syndrome

    (Emphasis added). See Hood v. State, 106 P.2d 271 (Okla. Cr. 1940). Fear alone never justifies one person to take the life of another.

  4. West v. State

    617 P.2d 1362 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980)   Cited 23 times

    It has long been recognized that the apprehension of danger and the belief of the necessity which would justify killing in self-defense is not to be tested by defendant's honesty or good faith but by whether the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe the killing necessary. Fixico v. State, 39 Okla. Cr. 95, 263 P. 171 (1928); Hood v. State, 70 Okla. Cr. 334, 106 P.2d 271 (1940); Anderson v. State, 90 Okla. Cr. 1, 209 P.2d 721 (1949); Jamison v. State, Okla. Cr. 304 P.2d 371 (1956). Fear alone is not enough to justify one person to take the life of another.

  5. McKee v. State

    372 P.2d 243 (Okla. Crim. App. 1962)   Cited 15 times
    In McKee, this Court held that the trial court properly rejected defendant's offer of expert testimony that she was motivated by mental apprehension of fear in slaying her husband.

    There must exist reasonable grounds for such belief at the time of the killing, and the existence of such ground is a question for the jury." See Edge v. State, 39 Okla. Cr. 277, 264 P. 213, and Hood v. State, 70 Okla. Cr. 334, 106 P.2d 271. To allow a psychiatrist to testify on the basis of examinations made more than thirty days after the slaying as to whether or not the accused acted in necessary self defense, on the basis of facts existing at the time of the slaying, would clearly sanction an invasion of this exclusive province of the jury.

  6. Bluejacket v. State

    217 P.2d 848 (Okla. Crim. App. 1950)

    BRETT, J. On petition for rehearing, having again reviewed the record herein, and in light of cases of a similar nature, Maloon v. State, 38 Okla. Cr. 34, 259 P. 173; Littleton v. State, 19 Okla. Cr. 461, 200 P. 716; Wingfield v. State, 89 Okla. Cr. 45, 205 P.2d 320; Hood v. State, 70 Okla. Cr. 334, 106 P.2d 271, and recognizing that one of the objects of modern institutional custody is reformation, and because of the extreme youth of the defendant, he being a mere boy 18 years of age, the judgment and sentence herein imposed, under the authority of Title 22 O.S.A. 1941 ยง 1066[ 22-1066], is hereby modified to a term of 25 years and as so modified is affirmed. JONES, P.J., and POWELL, J., concur.

  7. Moore v. State

    169 P.2d 575 (Okla. Crim. App. 1946)   Cited 2 times

    "The right of this court to modify a sentence imposed, and the reason for doing so, has often been stated in its opinions. It is unnecessary to restate them. Fritz v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 342, 128 P. 170; Anthony v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 494, 159 P. 934; Owen v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 195, 163 P. 548; Westbrook v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 423, 172 P. 464; Phillips v. State, 27 Okla. Cr. 108, 225 P. 180; Jones v. State, 48 Okla. Cr. 415, 292 P. 570; Alder v. State, 53 Okla. Cr. 374, 12 P.2d 545; Methvin v. State, 60 Okla. Cr. 1, 60 P.2d 1062; Johnson v. State, 70 Okla. Cr. 270, 106 P.2d 149; Hood v. State, 70 Okla. Cr. 334, 106 P.2d 271; Moore v. State, 75 Okla. Cr. 222, 130 P.2d 114."

  8. Hall v. State

    149 P.2d 268 (Okla. Crim. App. 1944)   Cited 6 times

    The right of this court to modify a sentence imposed, and the reason for doing so, has often been stated in its opinions. It is unnecessary to restate them. Fritz v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 342, 128 P. 170; Anthony v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 494, 159 P. 934; Owen v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 195, 163 P. 548; Westbrook v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 423, 172 P. 464; Phillips v. State, 27 Okla. Cr. 108, 225 P. 180; Jones v. State, 48 Okla. Cr. 415, 292 P. 570; Alder v. State, 53 Okla. Cr. 374, 12 P.2d 545; Methvin v. State, 60 Okla. Cr. 1, 60 P.2d 1062; Johnson v. State, 70 Okla. Cr. 270, 106 P.2d 149; Hood v. State, 70 Okla. Cr. 334, 106 P.2d 271; Moore v. State, 75 Okla. Cr. 222, 130 P.2d 114. As was said in Alder v. State, supra [ 53 Okla. Cr. 374, 12 P.2d 547]: