Rowe v. United States

David Cul Rowe, a Cherokee Indian, was convicted of manslaughter for killing Frank Bozeman, a white man, at a hotel in Indian Territory. The defense claimed self-defense, arguing that after Rowe lightly kicked Bozeman in response to offensive language, he withdrew by stepping back and leaning against a counter, whereupon Bozeman attacked him with a knife. The trial court instructed the jury that a person cannot claim self-defense for a necessity produced by his own unlawful acts, emphasizing that Rowe's initial kick deprived him of self-defense rights. The Supreme Court reversed, holding the instructions erroneous because they failed to account for the exception where an aggressor withdraws in good faith from combat, and improperly suggested Rowe had a duty to retreat or use less deadly force when attacked with a knife. The Court remanded for a new trial, with Justices Brown and Peckham dissenting.

A defendant convicted of manslaughter claimed self-defense after an initial minor act of aggression followed by withdrawal, but the trial court instructed the jury that prior unlawful acts barred self-defense entirely. The Supreme Court reversed, finding the instructions erroneous for ignoring the exception allowing good-faith withdrawal by an aggressor and for implying a duty to retreat or use lesser force when facing a knife attack. The case was remanded for a new trial.

• Jury instructions on self-defense were misleading
• Aggressor who withdraws in good faith may regain self-defense rights
• No duty to retreat when attacked with deadly weapon in place where one has right to be
• Error to require use of less deadly force in face of knife attack

• The case involves a murder indictment for a killing in the Cherokee Nation, Indian Territory
• The deceased was a white man and not an Indian

• Error in jury instructions on self-defense law
• Defendant duly excepted to the charge