The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D had gone to Philadelphia to play cards with friends. Before departing he placed a loaded revolver in the belt of his trousers. D returned sooner than had been anticipated and found his wife gone from home. She was attending a christening party in the neighborhood. Upon her return, D 'smacked' her in the face for leaving the house without his permission. His eleven-year-old stepdaughter, a witness to the incident, hastened back to the party and informed her uncle Carlos, D's brother-in-law, of what had occurred. Carlos immediately armed himself with a knife from the kitchen and set out for his sister's home. D was standing in the doorway of his home as Carlos approached the house and commenced to mount the porch steps. Carlos drew his knife and uttered a threat. D fired the revolver, inflicting a wound from which Carlos shortly died. D was charged with second-degree murder. The prosecutor, in commenting upon the alternative courses of action open to D said, 'What could this defendant have done? Gone in the house and shut the door? Possibly.' This statement was clearly capable of leaving in the minds of the jury the thought that D perhaps should have retreated indoors rather than have done what he did. The court's charge made no mention of retreat, and D asked that the charge be supplemented. He specifically stated, 'I respectfully ask that Your Honor instruct the jury that the man doesn't have to run from his own home.' The instruction was never given and D was convicted and it was affirmed. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.