User talk:J8079s/Sandbox2amnd

Welcome to my sandbox talk page for sources see User:J8079s/Sandbox2amnd

rev.1

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights however The right to arms predates the Bill of rights as the Natural law right of self-defense and as the civic duties to act in concert as posse comitatus and or in defense of the state. The 2nd amendment recognizes this right. Neither the courts nor scholars paid much attention to the the 2nd amendment for many years. While the courts trended in a vague and paradoxical way towards a now discarded "States Rights" theory, they never denied an individual right to arms. Scholars have since demonstrated that the amendment was written to protect the rights of individuals, the "standard view". Accepted by the courts in Heller and incorporated against the States in MacDonald. The "Sophisticated Collective" or "Individual/ Collective" was endorsed by the disent in Heller.

rev 2

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights however The right to arms predates the Bill of rights as the natural rights of self-defense and to resist oppression as the civic duties to act in concert as posse comitatus and or in defense of the state. The 2nd amendment recognizes this right.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, the Supreme Court ruled on several occasions that the amendment did not bar state regulation of firearms, considering the amendment to be “a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government and not upon that of the States.” The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms and is incorporated against the States via the due process clause of the 14th amendment. This represented the first time since the 1939 case United States v. Miller that the Supreme Court had directly addressed the scope of the Second Amendment.

In 2008 and 2010, the Court issued two landmark decisions to officially establish an "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

outline

1 Text
2 Pre-Constitution background
 2.1 Influence of the English Bill of Rights of 1689
 2.2 Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution
3 Drafting and adoption of the Constitution
4 Ratification debates
5 Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights
6 Militia in the decades following ratification

• Post-ratification Commentary/Early commentary
• State equevalants
• Pre-Civil War Case Law
• Post-Civil War Legislation/14th amendment and debate

In the aftermath of the Civil War, there was an outpouring of discussion of the Second Amendment in Congress and in public discourse, as people debated whether and how to secure constitutional rights for newly free slaves. See generally S. Halbrook, Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876 (1998) (hereinafter Halbrook); Brief for Institute for Justice as Amicus Curiae. Since those discussions took place 75 years after the ratification of the Second Amendment, they do not provide as much insight into its original meaning as earlier sources. Yet those born and educated in the early 19th century faced a widespread effort to limit arms ownership by a large number of citizens; their understanding of the origins and continuing significance of the Amendment is instructive.

• 4. Post-Civil War Commentators.

7 Scholarly commentary

7.3 Meaning of "well regulated militia" 7.4 Meaning of "the right of the People" 7.5 Meaning of "keep and bear arms" 8 Supreme Court cases 8.1 United States v. Cruikshank 8.2 Presser v. Illinois 8.3 Miller v. Texas 8.4 Robertson v. Baldwin 8.5 United States v. Miller 8.6 District of Columbia v. Heller 8.6.1 Judgment 8.6.2 Notes and analysis 8.7 McDonald v. Chicago 9 United States Courts of Appeals decisions before and after Heller 9.1 Before Heller 9.2 After Heller

dump source

Can Gun Control Work?

By James B. Jacobs Warren E. Burger Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Research in Crime and Justice New York University

aus

• http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425021/australias-1996-gun-confiscation-didnt-work-and-it-wouldnt-work-america-mark-antonio
• http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Lee%20and%20Suardi%202008.pdf
• http://c3.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Baker%20and%20McPhedran%202007.pdf

new

dissent https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6350&context=lalrev hennigan lund

statute of northampton

https://guncite.com/court/state/25nc418.html STATE v. ROBERT S. HUNTLEY. 1. The offence of riding or going armed with unusual or dangerous weapons, to the terror of the people, is an offence at common law, and is indictable in this State.

2. A man may carry a gun for any lawful purpose of business or amusement, but he cannot go about with that or any other dangerous weapon, to terrify and alarm, and in such manner as naturally will terrify and alarm a peaceful people.

3. The declarations of the defendant are admissible in evidence, on the part of the prosecution, as accompanying, explaining, and characterizing the acts charged.

Appeal from Settle, J., Spring Term, 1843, of Anson.

The defendant was tried upon the following indictment:

The jurors for the State upon their oath present, that Robert S. Huntly, late of the county aforesaid, laborer, on the first day of September, in the present year, with force and arms, at and in the county aforesaid, did arm himself with pistols, guns, knives, and other dangerous and unusual weapons, and being so armed, did go forth and exhibit himself openly, both in the daytime and in the night, to the good citizens of Anson aforesaid, and in the said highway and before the citizens aforesaid, did openly and publicly declare a purpose and intent, one James H. Ratcliff and other good citizens of the State, then and there being in the peace of God and of the State, to beat, wound, kill, and murder, which said purpose and intent, the said Robert S. Huntley, so openly armed and exposed and declaring, then (p.419)and there had and entertained, by which said arming, exposure, exhibition, and declarations of the said Robert S. Huntley, divers good citizens of the State were terrified, and the peace of the State endangered, to the evil example of all others in like cases offending, to the terror of the people, and against the peace and dignity of the State.

On the trial it was insisted on the part of the defendant, that allowing all the facts charged in the indictment to be true, they constituted no offence for which the defendant could be punished as for a misdemeanor. His Honor instructed the jury, that if the facts charged in the indictment were proven to their satisfaction, the defendant had been guilty of a violation of the law, and that they ought to render their verdict accordingly. In the investigation before the jury it appeared, among other things, that the defendant was seen by several witnesses, and on divers occasions, riding upon the public highway, and upon the premises of James H. Ratcliff (the person named in the indictment), armed with a double-barrelled gun, and on some of those occasions was heard to declare, "that if James H. Ratcliff did not surrender his negroes, he would kill him"; at others, "if James H. Ratcliff did not give him his rights, he would kill him"; on some, that "he had waylaid the house of James H. Ratcliff in the night about daybreak, and if he had shown himself he would have killed him; that he showed himself once, but for too short a time to enable him to do so, and that he mistook another man for him, and was very near shooting him." On one occasion, that "he would kill James H. Ratcliff if he did not surrender his negroes, and that as for William Ratcliff, he was good for him anyhow on sight; that there were four or five men whom he meant to kill." All these declarations were objected to by the defendant's counsel, but were received by the Court, as accompanying and qualifying and explaining the defendant's riding about the country armed with a double-barrelled gun. The jury having found the defendant guilty, his counsel moved for a new trial upon the grounds, first, that the declarations of the defendant before mentioned, were improperly (p.420)received; secondly, because the Judge should have told the jury, that supposing all the facts charged in the indictment to be true, still the defendant was entitled to their verdict. The motion was overruled, and judgment having been pronounced, the defendant appealed.

Attorney-General for the State.

Winston for the defendant.

Gaston, J. On the trial it was insisted by the defendant's counsel, and the Judge was required so to instruct the jury, that if the facts charged in the indictment were all true, they nevertheless constituted in law no offence of which they could find the defendant guilty. His Honor refused this prayer, and instructed the jury that if the facts charged were proved to their satisfaction, it was their duty to find him guilty. The same ground of defence has been taken here by way of a motion in arrest of judgment; but we are of opinion that in whatever form presented, it is not tenable.

The argument is, that the offence of riding or going about armed with unusual and dangerous weapons, to the terror of the people, was created by the statute of Northampton, 2 Edward III, ch. 3, and that, whether this statute was or was not formerly in force in this State, it certainly has not been since the first of January, 1838, at which day it is declared in the Revised Statutes, ch. 1, sec. 2, that the statutes of England or Great Britain shall cease to be of force and effect here. We have been accustomed to believe, that the statute referred to did not create this offence, but provided only special penalties and modes of proceeding for its more effectual suppression, and of the correctness of this belief we can see no reason to doubt. All the elementary writers, who give us any information on the subject, concur in this representation, nor is there to be found in them, as far as we are aware of, a dictum or intimation to the contrary. Blackstone states that "the offence of riding or going armed with dangerous or unusual weapons, is a (p.421)crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land; and is particularly prohibited by the statute of Northampton, 2 Edward III., ch. 3, upon pain of forfeiture of the arms, and imprisonment during the King's pleasure." 4 Bl. Com., 149. Hawkins, treating of offences against the public peace under the head of "Affrays," pointedly remarks, "but granting that no bare words in judgment of law carry in them so much terror as to amount to an affray, yet it seems certain that in some cases there may be an affray, where there is no actual violence, as where a man arms himself with dangerous and unusual weapons in such a manner as will naturally cause a terror to the people, which is said to have been always an offence at common law and strictly prohibited by many statutes." Hawk. P. C., B. 1, ch. 28, sec. 1. Burns & Tomlyns inform us that this term "Affray" is derived from the French word "effrayer," to affright, and that anciently it meant no more, "as where persons appeared with armour or weapons not usually worn, to the terror of others." Burns' Verbo "Affray." Dier do. It was declared by the Chief Justice in Sir John Knight's case, that the statute of Northampton was made in affirmance of the common law. 3 Mod., 117. And this is manifestly the doctrine of Coke, as will be found on comparing his observations on the word "Affray," which he defines (3 Just., 158) "a public offence to the terror of the King's subjects, and so called because it affrighteth and maketh men afraid, and is enquirable in a leet as a common nuisance," with his reference immediately thereafter to this statute, and his subsequent comments on it (3 Inst., 160), where he cites a record of 29 Edward I., showing what had been considered the law then. Indeed, if those acts be deemed by the common law crimes and misdemeanors, which are in violation of the public rights and of the duties owing to the community in its social capacity, it is difficult to imagine any which more unequivocally deserve to be so considered than the acts charged upon this defendant. They attack directly that public order and sense of security, which it is one of the first objects of the common (p.422)law, and ought to be of the law of all regulated societies to preserve inviolate--and they lead almost necessarily to actual violence. Nor can it for a moment be supposed that such acts are less mischievous here or less the proper subjects of legal reprehension, than they were in the country of our ancestors. The bill of rights in this State secures to every man, indeed, the right to "bear arms for the defence of the State." While it secures to him a right of which he cannot be deprived, it holds forth the duty in execution of which that right is to be exercised. If he employs those arms, which he ought to wield for the safety and protection of his country, to the annoyance and terror and danger of its citizens, he deserves but the severer condemnation for the abuse of the high privilege with which he has been invested.

It was objected below, and the objection has been also urged here, that the Court erred in admitting evidence of the declarations of the defendant, set forth in the case, because those, or some of them, at least, were acknowledgments of a different offence from that charged. But these declarations were clearly proper, because they accompanied, explained, and characterized the very acts charged. They were not received at all as admissions either of the offence under trial, or any other offence. They were constituent parts of that offence.

It has been remarked that a double-barrel gun, or any other gun, cannot in this country come under the description of "unusual weapons," for there is scarcely a man in the community who does not own and occasionally use a gun of some sort. But we do not feel the force of this criticism. A gun is an "unusual weapon," wherewith to be armed and clad. No man amongst us carries it about with him, as one of his every day accoutrements--as a part of his dress--and never, we trust, will the day come when any deadly weapon will be worn or wielded in our peace-loving and law-abiding State, as an appendage of manly equipment. But although a gun is an "unusual weapon," it is to be remembered that the carrying of a gun, per se, constitutes no (p.423)offence. For any lawful purpose--either of business or amusement--the citizen is at perfect liberty to carry his gun. It is the wicked purpose, and the mischievous result, which essentially constitute the crime. He shall not carry about this or any other weapon of death to terrify and alarm, and in such manner as naturally will terrify and alarm a peaceful people.

Per Curiam. No Error.

court cases

Rameriz, In re, 193 Cal. 633, 226 P. 914, 34 A.L.R. 51 (1924). [PDF] 55k

State v. White, 299 Mo. 599, 253 S.W. 724 (1923). [HTML] 29k

State v. Gentry, (Mo. Sup. Ct.) 242 S.W. 398 (1922). [HTML] 14k

Hayes v. State, 28 Ga. App. 67, 110 S.E. 320 (1922). [HTML] 2k

People v. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927 (1922). [HTML] 14k

State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222 (1921). [HTML] 22k

State v. Jackson, 283 Mo. 18, 222 S.W. 746 (1920). [HTML] 27k

State v. Nieto, 101 Ohio 409, 130 N.E. 663 (1920). [HTML] 49k

State v. Conley, 280 Mo. 21, 217 S.W. 29 (1919). [HTML] 11k

Town of Lester ex rel. Richardson v. Trail, 85 W. Va. 386, 389, 101 S.E. 732, 733 (1919). [HTML] 12k

State v. Reagan, 280 Mo. 57, 217 S.W. 83 (1919). [HTML] 12k

In Re Reilly, 31 Ohio Dec. 364 (C.P. 1919). [HTML] 9k

Danal v. State, 14 Ala. App. 97, 71 So. 976 (1916). [HTML] 7k

State v. Keet, 269 Mo. 206, 190 S.W. 573, L.R.A. 1917C, 60 (1916). [HTML] 18k

State v. Carter, 259 Mo. 349, 168 S.W. 679 (1914). [HTML] 16k

Heaton v. State, 130 Tenn. 163, 169 S.W. 750 (1914). [HTML] 17k

Johnson v. State, 11 Ala. App. 301, 66 South. 875 (1914). [HTML] 4k

Darling v. Warden, 154 App. Div. 413, 139 N.Y.S. 277 (1913). [HTML] 41k

Thomas v. State, 9 Ala. App. 67, 64 So. 192 (1913). [HTML] 6k

Carlton v. State, 63 Fla. 1, __, 58 So. 486, 488 (1912). [HTML] 23k

Ellias v. State, 65 Tex. App. 479, 144 S.W. 139 (1912). [HTML] 4k

Kellum v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. R. 505, 147 S.W. 870 (1912). [HTML] 4k

Nichols v. State, 4 Ala. App. 115, 58 So. 681 (1912). [HTML] 7k

People v. Persce, 204 N.Y. 397, 97 N.E. 877 (1912). [HTML] 11k

Isaiah v. State, 176 Ala. 27, 58 So. 53 (1911). [HTML] 24k

Commonwealth v. Patsone, 231 Pa. 46, 79 A. 928 (1911). [HTML] 25k

Strickland v. State, 137 Ga. 1, 72 S.E. 260 (1911). [HTML] 53k

State v. Athanas, 150 Mo. App. 588, 131 S.W. 373 (1910). [HTML] 8k

Eads v. State, 17 Wyo. 490, ___, 101 P. 946, 950-951 (1909). [HTML] 23k

State v. Hovis, 135 Mo. App. 544, 116 S.W. 6 (1909). [HTML] 9k

Salter v. State, 2 Okla. Crim. 464, 479, 102 P. 719, 725 (1909). [HTML] 36k

People v. Boa, 143 Ill. App. 356 (1908). [HTML] 11k

People v. Demorio, 123 App. Div. 665, 108 N.Y. Supp. 24 (1908). [HTML] 5k

Ex parte Thomas, 21 Okla. 770, 1 Okla. Cr. 210, 97 P. 260, 20 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1007, 17 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 566 (1908). [HTML] 29k

Fitzgerald v. State, 52 Tex. App. 265, 106 S.W. 365 (1907). [HTML] 5k

Kendall v. State, 118 Tenn. 156, 101 S.W. 189, 121 Am. St. Rep. 994, 11 Ann. Cas. 1104 (1907). [HTML] 6k

State v. Roan, 128 Mo. App. 212, 106 S.W. 581 (1907). [HTML] 4k

Ex Parte Luening, 3 Cal. App. 76; 84 P. 445 (1906). [HTML] 7k

Osborne v. State, 115 Tenn. 720, 92 S.W. 853 (1906). [HTML] 4k

Mangum v. State, (Tex. App.) 90 S.W. 31 (1905). [HTML] 2k

Salina v. Blaksley, 72 Kan. 230, 83 P. 619, 3 L.R.A. (N.S.) 168, 115 Am. St. Rep. 196, 7 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 925 (1905). [HTML] 9k

State v. Boone, 132 N.C. 1108, 44 S.E. 595 (1903). [HTML] 8k

State v. Rosenthal, 75 Vt. 295, 55 A. 610 (1903). [HTML] 8k

Wilson v. State, 81 Miss. 404, 33 So. 171 (1903). [HTML] 5k

In re Brickey, 8 Idaho 597, 70 P. 609, 101 Am. St. Rep. 215, 1 Ann. Cas. 55 (1902). [HTML] 5k

Judy v. Lashley, 50 W.Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197 (1902). [HTML] 22k

Brown v. State, 114 Ga. 60, 39 S.E. 873 (1901). [HTML] 5k

Dunston v. State, 124 Ala. 89, 27 So. 333, 82 Am. St. Rep. 152 (1900). [HTML] 5k

State v. Hogan, 63 Ohio 202, 58 N.E. 572, 52 L.R.A. 863, 81 Am. St. 626 (1900). [HTML] 24k

State v. Brown, 125 N.C. 704, 34 S.E. 549 (1899). [HTML] 5k

State v. Griffin, 125 N.C. 692, 34 S.E. 513 (1899). [HTML] 4k

Walburn v. State, 9 Okla. 23, 59 P. 972 (1899). [HTML] 14k

Bain v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. App. 635, 44 S.W. 518 (1898). [HTML] 6k

Hardy v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. App. 511, 40 S.W. 299 (1897). [HTML] 3k

Eubanks v. State, (Tex. App.) 40 S.W. 973 (1897). [HTML] 3k

State v. Reams, 121 N.C. 556, 27 S.E. 1004 (1897). [HTML] 6k

Stayton v. State, (Tex. App.) 40 S.W. 299 (1897). [HTML] 5k

State v. Foutch, 96 Tenn. (12 Pick.) 242, 34 S.W. 1 (1896). [HTML] 11k

Commonwealth v. Murphy, 166 Mass. 171, 44 N.E. 138 (1896). [HTML] 9k

Stanfield v. State, (Tex. App.) 34 S.W. 116 (1896). [HTML] 2k

Brownlee v. State, 35 Tex. Crim. App. 213, 32 S.W. 1044 (1895). [HTML] 5k

Lawson v. State, (Tex. App.) 31 S.W. 645 (1895). [HTML] 6k

State v. Lilly, 116 N.C. 1049, 21 S.E. 563 (1895). [HTML] 5k

State v. Pigford, 117 N.C. 748, 23 S.E. 182 (1895). [HTML] 3k

Price v. State, 34 Tex. Crim. App. 102, 29 S.W. 473 (1895). [HTML] 3k

Crawford v. State, 94 Ga. 772 (1894). [HTML] 6k

State v. Dixon, 114 N.C. 850, 19 S.E. 364 (1894). [HTML] 10k

McDaniel v. State, (Tex. App.) 26 S.W. 724 (1894). [HTML] 3k

Ratigan v. State, 33 Tex. Crim. App. 301 (1894). [HTML] 17k

Gorge v. State, (Tex. App.) 22 S.W. 43 (1893). [HTML] 3k

Love v. State, 32 Tex. App. 85, 22 S.W. 140 (1893). [HTML] 4k

Impson v. State, (Tex. App.) 19 S.W. 677 (1892). [HTML] 4k

Lemmons v State, Lemmons v. State, 56 Ark. 559; 20 S.W. 404 (1892). [HTML] 10k

Sanders v. State, (Tex. App.) 20 S.W. 556 (1892). [HTML] 5k

Valdez v. State, (Tex. Crim. App.) 18 S.W. 414 (1892). [HTML] 4k

Ex Parte Cheney, 90 Cal. 617, 27 P. 436 (1891). [HTML] 12k

Hathcote v. State, 55 Ark. 181, 17 S.W. 721 (1891). [HTML] 12k

Jones v. State, Jones v. State, 55 Ark. 186 (1891). [HTML] 7k

State v. Workman, 35 W.Va. 367, 14 S.E. 9, 14 L.R.A. 600 (1891). [HTML] 22k

State v. Barnett, 34 W.Va. 74, 11 S.E. 735 (1890). [HTML] 12k

Boles v. State, 86 Ga. 255 (1890). [HTML] 5k

Ladd v. State, 92 Ala. 58, 9 So. 401 (1890). [HTML] 12k

Maupin v. State, 89 Tenn. 367, 17 S.W. 1038 (1890). [HTML] 5k

State v. Murray, 39 Mo. App. 127 (1890). [HTML] 10k

State v. Roberts, 39 Mo. App. 47 (1890). [HTML] 5k

Strahan v. State, 68 Miss. 347, 8 So. 844 (1890). [HTML] 3k

Baker v. State, 28 Tex. App. 5, 11 S.W. 676 (1889). [HTML] 14k

Campbell v. State, 28 Tex. Crim. App. 44 (1889). [HTML] 4k

Coleman v. State, 28 Tex. Crim. App. 173, 12 S.W. 590 (1889). [HTML] 5k

Stilly v. State, 27 Tex. App. 445, 11 S.W. 458 (1889). [HTML] 8k

Diffey v. State, 86 Ala. 66, 5 So. 576 (1888). [HTML] 4k

Lann v. State, 25 Tex. App. 495 (1888). [HTML] 7k

State v. Livesay, 30 Mo. App. 633 (1888). [HTML] 12k

Cathey v. State, 23 Tex. App. 492 (1887). [HTML] 3k

Clark v. State, 49 Ark. 174 (1887). [HTML] 5k

Darby v. State, 23 Tex. Crim. App. 407, 5 S.W. 90 (1887). [HTML] 5k

State v. Julian, 25 Mo. App. 133 (1887). [HTML] 24k

State v. Larkin, 24 Mo. App. 410 (1887). [HTML] 6k

Sanderson v. State, 23 Tex. App. 520 (1887). [HTML] 2k

State v. Smith, 24 Mo. App. 413 (1887). [HTML] 4k

Brinson v. State, 75 Ga. 882 (1886). [HTML] 2k

State v. Hall, 20 Mo. App. 401 (1886). [HTML] 18k

State v. Hedrick, 20 Mo. App. 629 (1886). [HTML] 4k

Lyle v. State, 21 Tex. App. 153 (1886). [HTML] 6k

Redus v. State, 82 Ala. 53; 2 So. 713 (1886). [HTML] 5k

State v. Shelby, 90 Mo. 302, 2 S.W. 468 (1886). [HTML] 11k

State v. Bias, 37 La. Ann. 259 (1885). [HTML] 5k

Davis v. State, 45 Ark. 359 (1885). [HTML] 5k

State v. Harrison, 93 N.C. 605 (1885). [HTML] 7k

Hunter v. State, 62 Miss. 540 (1885). [HTML] 6k

Irvine v. State, 18 Tex. App. 51 (1885). [HTML] 8k

Kinkead v. State, 45 Ark. 536 (1885). [HTML] 7k

Smith v. State, 79 Ala. 257 (1885). [HTML] 6k

State v. Terry, 93 N.C. 585, 53 Am. Rep. 472 (1885). [HTML] 5k

Pressler v. State, 19 Tex. App. 52, 53 Am. Rep. 383 (1885). [HTML] 5k

Commonwealth v. Walker, 7 Ky. L. Rptr. 218 (1885). [HTML] 2k

State v. Broadnax, 91 N.C. 543 (1884). [HTML] 5k

Cunningham v. State, 76 Ala. 88 (1884). [HTML] 3k

State v. Erwin, 91 N.C. 545 (1884). [HTML] 10k

Mangum v. State, 15 Tex. App. 362 (1884). [HTML] 3k

Parrish v. Commonwealth, 81 Va. 1 (1884). [HTML] 34k

Burst v. State, 89 Ind. 133 (1883). [HTML] 7k

State v. Hayne, 88 N.C. 625 (1883). [HTML] 5k

State v. McManus, 89 N.C. (14 Ken.) 555 (1883). [HTML] 9k

State v. Peacock, 40 Ohio 333 (1883). [HTML] 2k

Zallner v. State, 15 Tex. App., 23 (1883). [HTML] 6k

Dabbs v. State, 39 Ark. 353 (1882). [HTML] 10k

Farley v. State, 72 Ala. 170 (1882). [HTML] 8k

State v. Gilbert, 87 N.C. (12 Ken.) 527 (1882). [HTML] 5k

Haile v. State, 38 Ark. 564, 42 Am. Rep. 3 (1882). [HTML] 7k

State v. Roten, 86 N.C. (11 Ken.) 701 (1882). [HTML] 8k

State v. Speller, 86 N.C. (11 Ken.) 697 (1882). [HTML] 10k

State v. Woodfin, 87 N.C. (12 Ken.) 526 (1882). [HTML] 3k

State v. Burgoyne, 75 Tenn. 173 (1881). [HTML] 12k

Collier v. State, 68 Ala. 499 (1881). [HTML] 8k

Harman v. State, 69 Ala. 248 (1881). [HTML] 3k

State v. Johnson, 16 S.C. 187 (1881). [HTML] 12k

Rice v. State, 10 Tex. App. 288 (1881). [HTML] 3k

State v. Wilforth, 74 Mo. 528, 41 Am. Rep. 330 (1881). [HTML] 9k

Wilson v. State, 68 Ala. 41 (1881). [HTML] 8k

Coffee v. State, 72 Tenn. (4 Lea) 246 (1880). [HTML] 4k

Dycus v. State, 74 Tenn. (6 Lea) 584 (1880). [HTML] 3k

Lewis v. State, 7 Tex. App. 567 (1880). [HTML] 5k

Moorefield v. State, 73 Tenn. (5 Lea) 348 (1880). [HTML] 2k

Carr v. State, 34 Ark 448, 36 Am. Rep. 15 (1879). [HTML] 6k

Coker v. State, 63 Ala. 95 (1879). [HTML] 6k

Dunne v. Illinois, 94 Ill. 120 (1879). [HTML] 52k

Leatherwood v. State, 6 Tex. App. 244 (1879). [HTML] 9k

Preston v. State, 63 Ala. 127 (1879). [HTML] 5k

Robinson v. State, 3 Tenn.Cas 59, 3 Shannon 59, 3 Leg.Rep., 114 (1879). [HTML] 3k

Shorter v. State, 63 Ala. 129 (1879). [HTML] 14k

State v. Callicut, 69 Tenn. (1 Lea) 714 (1878). [HTML] 6k

Holland v. State, 33 Ark. 560 (1878). [HTML] 3k

Hutchinson v. State, 62 Ala. 3, 34 Am. Rep. 1 (1878). [HTML] 4k

Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, 34 Am. Rep. 52 (1878). [HTML] 8k

Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. App. 298 (1878). [HTML] 8k

Owens v. State, 3 Tex. App. 404 (1878). [HTML] 10k

Summerlin v. State, 3 Tex. App. 444 (1878). [HTML] 7k

Williams v. State, 61 Ga. 417 (1878). [HTML] 5k

Lewis v. State, 2 Tex. App. 26 (1877). [HTML] 10k

State v. Carlton, 48 Vt. 636 (1876). [HTML] 26k

Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455, 25 Am. Rep. 556 (1876). [HTML] 16k

Stroud v. State, 55 Ala. 77 (1876). [HTML] 8k

Atwood v. State, 53 Ala. 508 (1875). [HTML] 6k

Gholson v. State, 53 Ala. 519, 25 Am. Rep. 652 (1875). [HTML] 8k

State v. Clayton, 43 Tex. 410 (1875). [HTML] 9k

State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455 (1875). [HTML] 17k

Smith v. State, 42 Tex. 464 (1875). [HTML] 4k

Titus v. State, 42 Tex. 578 (1875). [HTML] 3k

Wright v. Commonwealth, 77 Pa. 470 (1875). [HTML] 4k

Barton v. State, 66 Tenn. (7 Baxt.) 105 (1874). [HTML] 2k

Hill v. State, 53 Ga. 472 (1874). [HTML] 25k

Jones v. State, 51 Ala. 16 (1874). [HTML] 5k

Porter v. State, 66 Tenn. (7 Baxt.) 106 (1874). [HTML] 6k

Stoneman v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. (25 Gratt.) 887 (1874). [HTML] 40k

Baird v. State, 38 Tex. 599 (1873). [HTML] 8k

Baker v. State, 49 Ala. 350 (1873). [HTML] 9k

Christian v. State, 37 Tex. 475 (1873). [HTML] 3k

Eslava v. State, 49 Ala. 355 (1873). [HTML] 7k

Maxwell v. State, 38 Tex. 170 (1873). [HTML] 4k

Carroll v. State, 28 Ark. 99, 18 Am. Rep. 538 (1872). [HTML] 6k

English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 14 Am. Rep. 374 (1872). [HTML] 17k

Hilliard v. State, 37 Tex. 358 (1872). [HTML] 4k

Lockett v. State, 47 Ala. 42 (1872). [HTML] 12k

Morton v. State, 46 Ga. 292 (1872). [HTML] 6k

Waddell v. State, 37 Tex. 354 (1872). [HTML] 5k

State v. Wilburn, 66 Tenn. (7 Bax.) 57, 32 Am. Rep. 551 (1872). [HTML] 12k

Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk.) 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8 (1871). [HTML] 61k

Commonwealth v. Branham, 71 Ky. (18 Bush) 387 (1871). [HTML] 4k

Evins v. State, 46 Ala. 88 (1871). [HTML] 3k

Commonwealth v. McNulty, 28 Leg. Intel., 389, 8 Phila. 610 (Penn. 1871). [HTML] 2k

Page v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk.) 198 (1871). [HTML] 8k

Smith v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk.) 511 (1871). [HTML] 6k

Carico v. Commonwealth, 70 Ky. (7 Bush) 124 (1870). [HTML] 15k

Cutsinger v. Commonwealth, 70 Ky. (7 Bush) 392 (1870). [HTML] 4k

Galvin v. State, 46 Tenn. (6 Cold.) 283 (1869). [HTML] 26k

Hopkins v. Commonwealth, 66 Ky. (3 Bush) 480 (1868). [HTML] 7k

Sutton v. State, 12 Fla. 135 (1867). [HTML] 7k

Smith v. Ishenhour, 43 Tenn. (3 Cold.) 214 (1866). [HTML] 9k

Philips v. Commonwealth, 63 Ky. (2 Duv.) 328 (1865). [HTML] 12k

Cobb v. Stallings, 34 Ga. 73 (1864). [HTML] 13k

Ex parte McCants, 39 Ala. 107 (1863). [HTML] 16k

State v. Moore, 31 Conn. 479 (1863). [HTML] 22k

Ex parte Coupland, 26 Tex. 387 (1862). [HTML] 124k

Jeffers v. Fair, 33 Ga. 347 (1862). [HTML] 58k

Stockdale v. State, 32 Ga. 225 (1861). [HTML] 8k

Isaacs v. State, 25 Tex. 174 (1860). [HTML] 12k

McManus v. State, 36 Ala. 285 (1860). [HTML] 23k

Pond v. People, 8 Mich. 150 (1860). [HTML] 74k

Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, 401 (1859). [HTML] 26k

State v. Hannibal, 51 N.C. (6 Jones) 57 (1859). [HTML] 8k

Opinion of the Justices, 80 Mass. (14 Gray) 614 (1859). [HTML] 16k

Sears v. State, 33 Ala. 347 (1859). [HTML] 6k

Owen v. State, 31 Ala. 387 (1858). [HTML] 6k

State v. Jumel, 13 La. Ann. 399 (1858). [HTML] 6k

State v. Chavers, 50 N.C. (5 Jones) 11 (1857). [HTML] 11k

Day v. State, 37 Tenn. (5 Sneed) 495 (1857). [HTML] 11k

Flournoy v. State, 16 Tex. 31 (1856). [HTML] 6k

State v. Smith, 11 La. Ann. 633, 66 Am. Dec. 208 (1856). [HTML] 6k

Campbell v. People, 16 Ill. 17 (1854). [HTML] 12k

State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 52 Am. Dec. 599 (1850). [HTML] 11k

Cooper and Warsham v. Savannah, 4 Ga. 68, 72 (1848). [HTML] 12k

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846). [HTML] 34k

Walls v. State, 7 Blackf. 572 (Ind. 1845). [HTML] 3k

Haynes v. State, 24 Tenn. (5 Hum.) 120 (1844). [HTML] 11k

State v. Newsom, 27 N.C. (5 Ired.) 250 (1844). [HTML] 13k

State v. Huntley, 25 N.C. (3 Ired.) 418, 40 Am. Dec. 416 (1843). [HTML] 12k

State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark. (2 Pike) 18 (1842). [HTML] 64k

State v. Morgan, 25 N.C. (3 Ired.) 186 (1842). [HTML] 21k

State v. Duzan, 6 Blackf. 31 (Ind. 1841). [HTML] 2k

Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. (2 Hump.) 154 (1840). [HTML] 21k

State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 35 Am. Dec. 44 (1840). [HTML] 23k

Commonwealth v. Riley, Thacher's Crim. Cas. 471 (Mass. 1837). [HTML] 15k

State v. Mitchell, 3 Blackf. 229 (Ind. 1833). [HTML] 1k

Simpson v. State, 13 Tenn. (5 Yer.) 356 (1833). [HTML] 15k

Gray v. Combs, 30 Ky. (7 J.J. Mar.) 478 (1832). [HTML] 23k

Grainger v. State, 13 Tenn. (5 Yerg.) 459 (1830). [HTML] 11k

Commonwealth v. Blanding, 3 Pick. 304 Mass. (1825). [HTML]

Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822). [HTML] 11k