 |
 |
|
| |
|
|
Hicks v. United States
Supreme Court of United States (1893)
Petitioner/Defendant: Hicks; the defendant and a codefendant were American Indians who were indicted for the killing of a white man. The codefendant who actually shot the victim, was killed by the police in an encounter and now the defendant was convicted with the murder of the victim. According to the witnesses, the defendant had told the victim to die like a man and then the codefendant had shot the victim. Now the defendant appeals and argues that his words did not encourage the codefendant to shoot the victim and he also argues that he only said those words because he was scared that the codefendant was going to shoot him also.
Issue: Should the defendant be convicted just because of the words he used?
Holding: No
Legal Reasoning: The court held that if the defendant used the words without the intent to encourage the killer, then he should not be convicted. The court further held that if the defendant used the words without any mens rea and the killer still gets encouraged by those words, then the defendant should still not be held liable. The court further held that if the mere purpose of the defendant being present at the murder spot was to provide encouragement to the killer, then he should definately be held liable. The court ruled for a new trial.