Colondro v. State

— Appellant was indicted for murder, tried by a jury, and convicted of manslaughter.

Pie complains of the court’s instructions Nos. 7, 9 and 10 on the subject of self-defense, because they base appellant’s right to self-defense on his being “in a place where he had a right to be so far as his assailant was concerned.” Appellant’s counsel says that.none of these instructions takes into account the proposition that a person, in a place where he has no right to be so far as his assailant is concerned, may be suddenly attacked *535with, a deadly weapon and driven to the wall. Counsel further claims…