HOMICIDE (Lat. homo, a man, cedere, to kill). The killing any human creature. 4 Blackstone, Comm. 177.
The killing of a man by a man. 1 Hawkins, Pl. Cr. c. 8, 2; 5 Cush. Mass. 303.
Excusable homicide is that which takes place under such circumstances of accident or necessity that the party cannot strictly be said. to have committed the act wilfully and inten tionally, and whereby he is relieved from the penalty annexed to the commission of a felo nious homicide.
Felonious homicide is that committed wil fully under such circumstances as to render it punishable.
Justifiable homicide is that committed with full but under such circumstances of duty as to render the act one proper to be performed.
According to Blackstone, 4 Comm.177, homicide is the killing of any human creature. This is the most extensive sense of this word, in which the in tention is not considered. But in a more limited sense, it is always understood that the killing is by human agency ; and Hawkins defines it to be the killing of a man by a man. 1 Hawkins, Pl. Cr. c. 8,8.2. See Dalloz, Diet.; 5 Cush. Mass. 303. Ho micide may perhaps be described to be the destruc tion of the life of one human being, either by him self or by the act, procurement, or culpable omission of another. When the death has been intentionally caused by the deceased himself, the offender is called felo de se ; when it is caused by another, it is justifiable, excusable, or felonious.
The distinction between justifiable and excusable homicide is that in the former the killing takes place without any manner of fault on the parte( the slayer; in the latter there is some slighe fault, or at any rate the absence of any duty rendering the act a proper one to be performed, although the blame is so slight as not to render the party pun ishable. The distinotion is very frequently disre
garded, and would seem to be of little practical utility. See 2 Bishop, .Crim. Law, n 538 et seq. But between justifiable or excusable and felonious homicide the distinction, it will be evident, is of great importance. 1 East, Pl. Cr. 260, gives the fol lowing example : "If a person driving a carriage happen to kill another, if he saw or had timely no tice of the mischief likely to ensue, and yet wil fully drove on, it will be murder; if be might have seen the danger, but did net look before him, it will be manslaughter • but if the accident happened in such a manner that no want of due care could be imputed to the driver, it will he accidental death and excusable homicide." See 4 Sharswood, Blaekst. Comm. 176-204 ; Roscoe, Crim. Ev. 580.
There must he a person in actual existence, 6 Carr. &P. 349 ; 7 id. 814, 850 ; 9 id. 25 ; but the destruction of human life at any period after birth is homicide, however near it may be to extinction from any other cause. 2 Carr. & K. 784; 2 Bishop, Crim. Law, 582. The person killed, to constitute the homicide felo nious, must have been entitled to his existence. Thus, a soldier of the enemy in time of war has no right to his life, but may be killed. A criminal sentenced to be hung has no right to his life ; but no person can take it but the i ffi authorized officer, in the prescribed manner.
See MURDER ; MANSLAUGHTER ; SELF-DEFENCE.