The opinion
ON REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
The refused charge mentioned in the opinion, a basis of the court’s error, asserts that the law permits the assailed defendant to protect not only himself, but any member of his family from danger to his life or the sustention of great bodily harm at the hands of the deceased. We fail to find in the court’s oral charge that such protection was extended to any member of deceased’s family occupying the home. Such protection appears in the charge approved in Naugher, supra.
In our opinion we did not advert to refused charge 11, as follows:
“The Court charges you that if the jury believes from the evidence that the deceased was of a violent character when drinking alcohol, they are to take such evidence into consideration in determining the degree of the defendant’s guilt, provided they find him guilty.”
A similar charge was approved in Jacobs v. State, 29 Ala.App. 388 , 197 So. 67 , cert. denied, 240 Ala. 58 , 197 So. 69 . See also, Smith v. State, 88 Ala. 73 , 7 So. 52 , for an approved charge of the same viewpoint. The refusal of charge 11, supra, was error.
The remaining argued charges tendered by defendant were not based on the evidence. The court did not err in refusing them. Duchac v. State, 52 Ala.App. 327 , 292 So.2d 135 , cert. denied 292 Ala. 251 , 292 So.2d 139 .
Opinion extended; application overruled.
All the Judges concur.