(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. HOMICIDE — Evidence — Remoteness. In a case of homicide or of assault with intent to murder, it is competent to introduce evidence of the conduct, acts, and general demeanor of the defendant before the crime for the purpose of proving that he was armed and in a vicious mood, provided such conduct is so near the time of the homicide or assault that it tends to show the state of mind of the defendant at the time of the killing or assault, but it is not competent to introduce evidence of any conduct of appellant so far removed in point of time as not to shed any light upon the case upon trial.
2. SAME — Evidence — Presumptions — Provocation. When the question is as to whether or not a defendant charged with assault with intent to murder or with murder acted upon antecedent malice or fresh provocation, the law will presume that such action was upon the fresh provocation, unless there is evidence tending to connect such antecedent malice with such fresh provocation.
3. SAME — Justification — Defense of Another. The wife has the right to act in the defense of her husband when the facts and circumstances of the case, judging from her standpoint and as they reasonably appear to her, are such as to create in her mind a reasonable apprehension that her husband is in imminent danger of being killed, or receiving serious bodily injury at the hands of his assailant.
FURMAN, P.J. (after stating the facts as above).
We have examined the record in this case carefully, and we find that the facts and questions of law involved are correctly stated in the brief of counsel for appellant. We therefore adopt this brief as our opinion in this case; and for the reasons therein stated the judgment of the lower court is reversed and the cause remanded.
ARMSTRONG and DOYLE, JJ., concur.