State v. Davis
South Carolina Supreme Court
214 S.C. 34, 51 S.E.2d 86 (1948)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
One afternoon, Mack Davis (defendant) and Norman Gordon, Jr., had an argument at a tobacco barn which resulted in Gordon hitting Davis and knocking him to the ground. Early that evening, Davis was at a store in a rural section of the county when Gordon came in and asked the store’s owner to lend him a gun, stating, “I believe Mack is going to shoot me.” The store owner refused and Gordon responded by saying he would retrieve one from the tobacco barn he had been at earlier that day. Around the same time, Davis left the store and went across the road in the direction of his home. Shortly thereafter, the store owner heard the sound of a shotgun discharging and found Gordon lying in a nearby cornfield. Gordon later died. Davis was charged with murder. At trial, Davis testified that he had retrieved the shotgun from his home and concealed himself in the cornfield for the purpose of shooting Gordon as he returned to the store. The trial court refused Davis’ request to instruct the jury that Davis was not required to retreat. Instead, the trial court instructed the jury “that if a person is threatened with a gun…within shooting range…there is no duty to retreat; and it is only in cases where a person can with safety avoid a difficulty that he is required to retreat under the law to avoid committing murder.” Davis was found guilty and he appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Oxner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
