Слике страница
PDF
ePub

2

ties the presumption of sanity can only be overcome by the same degree of proof that is necessary to overcome the presumption of innocence; in other words proof of insanity must be made beyond a reasonable doubt. There are many decisions which stop short of holding that the proof of insanity must be such as to establish it beyond a reasonable doubt, but which declare that the proof must be clear and convincing, or that it must be such as to satisfy the jury that the defendant was insane at the time of the trial; and that a doubt as to such sanity will not justify a jury in acquitting the defendant on that ground. The view adopted by the weight of authority, however, requires that insanity be proved in criminal cases only by a preponderance of the evidence; that is, the same evidence will establish the defense of insanity which would prove insanity in a civil case. Some courts insist that this position is not logical. They place the burden upon the defendant, in the first instance, to overcome the presumption in favor of sanity by introducing sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt of his sanity

Notes: 69 Am. Dec. 650; 97 Am. Dec. 176; 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 126.

2. See Adair v. State, 6 Okla. Crim. 284, 118 Pac. 416, 44 L.R.A.(N.S.) 119.

3. State v. Marler, 2 Ala. 43, 36 Am. Dec. 398; McAllister v. State, 17 Ala. 434, 52 Am. Dec. 180; State v. McCoy, 34 Mo. 531, 86 Am. Dec. 121 (dictum).

Notes: 83 Am. Dec. 239; 97 Am. Dec. 176; 76 A. S. R. 92; 39 L.R.A. 737; 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 125.

4. McAllister v. State, 17 Ala. 434, 52 Am. Dec. 180 and note; Boswell v. State, 63 Ala. 307, 35 Am. Rep. 20; State v. Scott, 49 La. Ann. 253, 21 So. 271, 36 L.R.A. 721, overruling State v. De Rance, 34 La. Ann. 186, 44 Am. Rep. 426; People v. Aiken, 66 Mich. 460, 33 N. W. 821, 11 A. S. R. 512; State v. McCoy, 34 Mo. 531, 86 Am. Dec. 121; State v. Porter, 213 Mo. 43, 111 S. W. 529, 127 A. S. R. 589; Baccigalupo v. Com., 33 Grat. (Va.) 807, 36 Am. Rep. 795.

Notes: 39 L.R.A. 737; 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 128.

5. Ortwein v. Com., 76 Pa. St. 414, 18 Am. Rep. 420.

6. Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. 577, 2 So. 854, 60 Am. Rep. 193; Danforth v. State, 75 Ga. 614, 58 Am. Rep. 480; State v. Trout, 74 Ia. 545, 38 N. W.

405, 7 A. S. R. 499; Com. v. Spencer, 212 Mass. 438, 99 N. E. 266, Ann. Cas. 1913D 552; State v. McCoy, 34 Mo. 531, 86 Am. Dec. 121; State v. Redemeier, 71 Mo. 173, 36 Am. Rep. 462; State v. Speyer, 207 Mo. 540, 106 S. W. 505, 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 836; Graves v. State, 45 N. J. L. 347, 46 Am. Rep. 778; Kelch v. State, 55 Ohio St. 146, 45 N. E. 6, 39 L.R.A. 737, 60 A. S. R. 680 and note; State v. Austin, 71 Ohio St. 317, 73 N. E. 218, 104 A. S. R. 778; State v. Sappienza, 84 Ohio St. 63, 95 N. E. 381, Ann. Cas. 1912B 1109, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1118; Adair v. State, 6 Okla. Crim. 284, 118 Pac. 416, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 119 (stating rule but holding otherwise); Coyle v. Com., 100 Pa. St. 573, 45 Am. Rep. 397; State v. Quigley, 26 R. I. 263, 58 Atl. 905, 3 Ann. Cas. 920, 67 L.R.A. 322; State v. Bundy, 24 S. C. 439, 58 Am. Rep. 262; State v. Brown, 36 Utah 46, 102 Pac. 641, 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 545; State v. Clark, 34 Wash. 485, 76 Pac. 98, 101 A. S. R. 1006.

Notes: 36 Am. Dec. 410; 97 Am. Dec. 176; 27 A. S. R. 693; 76 A. S. R. 92; 39 L.R.A. 739; 44 L.R.A.(N.S.) 127; see also Com. v. Deitrich, 218 Pa. St. 36, 66 Atl. 1007, 120 A. S. R. 861, 11 Ann. Cas. 308.

7. People v. McCann, 16 N. Y. 58, 69 Am. Dec. 642.

when the act was committed. When he has done this, the prosecution, in order to convict, is required to prove the defendant's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt; and if, on a consideration of all the evidence, the jury entertain a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's sanity when the act was committed, it is held that he should be acquitted.8 Some of the authorities go to the extent of holding that the defendant is not required to introduce sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt of his sanity, but, if he introduces any evidence tending to prove insanity in the slightest degree, that the state must then prove his sanity beyond a reasonable doubt."

220. Alibi.-There is not entire harmony in the decisions, as to the degree of proof of an alibi which must be produced in order to entitle a defendant to an acquittal.10 While it has been frequently claimed that the accused should be required to establish his alibi by the same measure of proof as that by which the prosecution is required to show guilt, it has been uniformly held, whenever the question has arisen, that the accused need not prove an alibi beyond a reasonable doubt.11 An alibi, proceeding as it does upon the idea that the accused was elsewhere at the date of the act, does of course, if thoroughly established, preclude the possibility of guilt; but it does not therefore follow that the jury must be absolutely convinced of its truth. It is enough if the proof adduced in support of it, viewed in connection with all the testimony in the case, creates such a probability of its own truth as to engender a reasonable doubt of the truth of the charge upon which the defendant is arraigned; and this might be effected even though the jury did not feel positively assured either of the veracity of the witnesses or of the correspondence of time. If, looking to all the evidence, inculpatory and exculpatory, they enter

8. Armstrong v. State, 30 Fla. 170, 11 So. 618, 17 L.R.A. 484; Stevens v. State, 31 Ind. 485, 99 Am. Dec. 634; Plake v. State, 121 Ind. 433, 23 N. E. 273, 16 A. S. R. 408; People v. Garbutt, 17 Mich. 9, 97 Am. Dec. 162; State v. Bartlett, 43 N. H. 224, 80 Am. Dec. 154; O'Connell v. People, 87 N. Y. 377, 41 Am. Rep. 379;; Maas v. Territory, 10 Okla. 714, 63 Pac. 960, 53 L.R.A. 814; Adair v. State, 6 Okla. Crim. 284, 118 Pac. 416, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 119 and note; Alberty v. State, 10 Okla. Crim. 616, 140 Pac. 1025, 52 L.R.A. (N.S.) 248; Duthey v. State, 131 Wis. 178, 111 N. W. 222, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1032.

Notes: 52 Am. Dec. 184; 83 Am. Dec. 239; 97 Am. Dec. 176; 35 Am.

Rep. 32; 76 A. S. R. 92; 39 L.R.A. 743.

9. Maas v. Territory, 10 Okla. 714, 63 Pac. 960, 53 L.R.A. 814; Adair v. State, 6 Okla. Crim. 284, 118 Pac. 416, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 119.

10. State v. Hardin, 46 Ia. 623, 26 Am. Rep. 174.

Note: 41 L.R.A. 530. As to the

burden of proof, see supra, par. 167.

11. Landis v. State, 70 Ga. 651, 48 Am. Rep. 588; Miles v. State, 93 Ga. 117, 19 S. E. 805, 44 A. S. R. 140 and note; State v. Vincent, 24 a. 570, 95 Am. Dec. 753; State v. Hardin, 46 Ia. 623, 26 Am. Rep. 174; State v. Jackson, 36 S. C. 487, 15 S. E. 559, 31 A. S. R. 890 and note.

Notes: 62 A. S. R. 680; 41 L.R.A. 530, 531; 8 Ann. Cas. 1189.

tain a reasonable doubt of the prisoner's presence at and participation in the crime, they should acquit.12

Weight and Sufficiency

221. In General.-Ordinarily the sufficiency of evidence to prove the main fact of guilt or any evidentiary fact looking thereto is a matter within the province of the jury.18 And while the law prescribes certain rules for the guidance of juries in dealing with the evidence, it accords to them full and unrestricted power to determine what facts are proven and what not proven, when there is substantial evidence tending to establish them, or the evidence pro and con is conflicting, and is not controlled by some fact or circumstance so clearly and fully established as to leave no possible doubt of its existence, and of such character as makes it necessarily rule the whole case; and the credibility of witnesses is for jury determination, and no other, when any link or fact depends upon that question.14 When the evidence is all before the jury, they are to weigh it, without regard to the side from which it comes, and determine whether or not the guilt of the prisoner has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.15

222. Circumstantial Evidence.-Where circumstantial evidence is relied on a few facts, or a multitude of facts, proven, all consistent with the supposition of guilt, are not enough to warrant a verdict of guilty; but in order to convict on circumstantial evidence, it is held necessary, not only that the circumstances all concur to show that the prisoner committed the crime, but that they all be inconsistent

12. Prince v. State, 100 Ala. 144, 14 So. 409, 46 A. S. R. 28; Carlton v. People, 150 Ill. 181, 37 N. E. 244, 41 A. S. R. 346; French v. State, 12 Ind. 670, 74 Am. Dec. 229; State v. Hardin, 46 Ia. 623, 26 Am. Rep. 174; State v. Ardoin, 49 La. Ann. 1145, 22 So. 620, 62 A. S. R. 678 and note; Pollard v. State, 53 Miss. 410, 24 Am. Rep. 703; State v. Campbell, 210 Mo. 202, 109 S. W. 706, 14 Ann. Cas. 403; State v. McClellan, 23 Mont. 532, 59 Pac. 924, 75 A. S. R. 558; Henry v. State, 51 Neb. 149, 70 N. W. 924, 66 A. S. R. 450; Johnson v. State, 88 Neb. 565, 130 N. W. 282, Ann. Cas. 1912B 965; Turner v. Com., 86 Pa. St. 54, 27 Am. Rep. 683; State v. Thornton, 10 S D. 849, 73 N. W. 196, 41 L.R.A. 530 and note.

Note: 8 Ann. Cas. 1189.

13. Hoke v. United States, 227 U. S. 308, 33 S. Ct. 281, 57 U. S. (L. ed.)

523, Ann. Cas. 1913E 905, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 906; McAllister v. State, 17 Ala. 434, 52 Am. Dec. 180; State v. Gleim, 17 Mont. 17, 41 Pac. 998, 52 A. S. R. 655, 31 L.R.A. 294; Pumphrey v. State, 84 Neb. 636, 122 N. W. 19, 18 Ann. Cas. 979, 23 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1023; State v. Douglas, 26 Nev. 196, 65 Pac. 802, 99 A. S. R. 688; Andrews v. State, 64 Tex. Crim. 2, 141 S. W. 220, 42 L.R.A.(N.S.) 747.

14. State v. Kidwell, 62 W. Va. 466, 59 S. E. 494, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1024.

15. Gannon v. People, 127 Ill. 507 21 N. E. 525, 11 A. S. R. 147; Carlton v. People, 150 Ill. 181, 37 N. E. 244, 41 A. S. R. 346; State v. Hickam, 95 Mo. 322, 8 S. W. 252, 6 A. S. R. 54; State v. Bartlett, 43 N. H. 224, 80 Am. Dec. 154; Culpepper v. State, 4 Okla. Crim. 103, 111 Pac. 679, 140 A. S. R 668, 31 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1166.

222

CRIMINAL LAW

with any other rational conclusion.16 It has always been held, in cases of purely circumstantial evidence, that if any of the facts or circumstances established be absolutely inconsistent with the hypothesis of guilt, that hypothesis cannot be true. The hypothesis of guilt is to be compared with the facts proved, and with all of them.17 If the circumstances established are dependent one upon another, each must be consistent only with the theory of guilt in order that a conviction may stand, 18 but if the circumstances are independent the prevailing view is that weak links in the chain may be strengthened by the stronger ones. 19 Again, if the circumstances, no matter how strong, can be reasonably reconciled with the theory that some other person may have done the act, the defendant should not be convicted; and a verdict of guilty will be set aside as contrary to law. 20 Yet in cases of circumstantial evidence, where the facts or circumstances which are proven are not only consistent with the guilt of the defendant, but are also inconsistent with his innocence, such evidence in weight and probative force may surpass direct evidence in its effect upon the jury. To warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence, it is not essential that no inference or presumption shall be indulged in by the jury that does not in their minds necessarily arise from the circumstances proved. Although circumstantial or presumptive evidence is allowed to prevail, even to the convicting of an offender, still the circumstances must themselves be proved and not presumed.*

16. People v. Dole, 122 Cal. 486, 55 Pac. 581, 68 A. S. R. 50; State v. Gallivan, 75 Conn. 326, 53 Atl. 731, 96 A. S. R. 203; Carlton v. People, 150 Ill. 181, 37 N. E. 244, 41 A. S. R. 346; Sumner v. State, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 579, 36 Am. Dec. 561; Rhodes v. State, 128 Ind. 189, 27 N. E. 866, 25 A. S. R. 429; State v. Clifford, 86 Ia. 550, 53 N. W. 299, 41 A. S. R. 518; Com. v. Webster, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 295, 52 Am. Dec. 711; Burt v. State, 72 Miss. 408, 16 So. 342, 48 A. S. R. 563 and note; State v. Suitor, 43 Mont. 31, 114 Pac. 112, Ann. Cas. 1912C 230; Schultz v. State, 88 Neb. 613, 130 N. W. 105, 34 L.R.A.(N.S.) 243; State v. Atkinson, 40 S. C. 363, 18 S. E. 1021, 42 A. S. R. 877; Hocker v. State, 34 Tex. Crim. 359, 30 S. W. 783, 53 A. S. R. 716; State v. Wells, 35 Utah 400, 100 Pac. 681, 136 A. S. R. 1059, 19 Ann. Cas. 631; State v. Kidwell, 62 W. Va. 466, 59 S. E. 494, 13 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1024. Notes: 81 Am. Dec. 503; 39 A. S. R. 18; 59 A. S. R. 100; 97 A. S. R. 776.

17. People v. Aikin, 66 Mich. 460, 33 N. W. 821, 11 A. S. R. 512.

Note: 97 A. S. R. 776.

18. State v. Cohen, 108 Ia. 208, 78 N. W. 857, 75 A. S. R. 213; Ex parte Jefferies, 7 Okla. Crim. 544, 124 Pac. 924, 41 L.R.A.(N.S.) 749 and note.

Notes: 97 A. S. R. 779; 41 L.R.A. (N.S.) 755.

19. State v. Cohen, 108 Ia. 208, 78 N. W. 857, 75 A. S. R. 213; Ex parte Jefferies, 7 Okla. Crim. 544, 124 Pac. 924, 41 L.R.A. (N.S.) 749 and note. Note: 97 A. S. R. 780. 20. Note: 97 A. S. R.,778.

1. Ex parte Jefferies, 7 Okla. Crim. 544, 124 Pac. 924, 41 L.R.A.(N.S.) 749 and note.

2. Gannon v. People, 127 Ill. 507, 21 N. E. 525, 11 A. S. R. 147.

3. Carlton v. People, 150 Ill. 181, 37 N. E. 244, 41 A. S. R. 346 and note; Hess v. State, 5 Ohio 5, 22 Am. Dec. 767.

4. State v. Wells, 35 Utah 400, 100 Pac. 681, 136 A. S. R. 1059, 19 Ann. Cas. 631.

While the evidence must lead to the conclusion so clearly and strongly, where the evidence is purely circumstantial, as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence, still, it is not necessary that the evidence should produce absolute certainty in the minds of the jurors, or that it should dissipate mere conjectures and speculative doubts,-for metaphysical and demonstrative certainty is not essential to proof by circumstances. It is sufficient if the evidence produce moral certainty, to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.5 223. Character of Accused.-The authorities are not in accord as to the effect of character evidence,-whether it should be considered by the jury in all cases, or only in those where there is doubt as to the guilt of the accused. In the earlier decisions character evidence was held to be of weight only in doubtful cases; and it was denied that proof of good character is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, when, excluding such proof, the evidence is sufficient to satisfy them of the guilt of the accused. The practice of charging juries that evidence of character is of little or no weight, except in doubtful cases, is the outgrowth of the expression to jurors of judges' opinions on matters of fact and the weight to be given to evidence. This rule, however, has been much criticised, and the weight of authority is now against it.10 The prevailing view is that where evidence of reputation is admissible, its weight should be left to be determined by the jury in connection with all the other evidence in the case; and it is generally agreed that circumstances may be such that an established reputation for good character, if it is rele vant to the issue, will alone create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, although without it the other evidence may be convinc

5. Thornton v. State, 113 Ala. 43, 21 So. 356, 59 A. S. R. 97; Carlton v. People, 150 Ill. 181, 37 N. E. 244, 41 A. S. R. 346; People v. Buettner, 233 Ill. 272, 84 N. E. 218, 13 Ann. Cas. 235; Findley v. State, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 576, 36 Am. Dec. 557; Rhodes v. State, 128 Ind. 189, 27 N. E. 866, 25 A. S. R. 429.

Note: 97 A. S. R. 777.

6. State v. Northrup, 48 Ia. 583, 30 Am. Rep. 408. See supra, par. 170, 202 et seq.

7. Thornton v. State, 113 Ala. 43, 21 So. 356, 55 A. S. R. 97; Daniels v. State, 2 Penn. (Del.) 586, 48 Atl. 196, 54 L.R.A. 286; McDaniel v. State, 8 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 401, 47 Am. Dec. 93; State v. Wells, 1 N. J. L. 424, 1 Am. Dec. 211.

Notes: 11 Ann. Cas. 1190; Ann. Cas. 1913E 18.

[ocr errors]

8. Wesley v. State, 37 Miss. 327, 75 Am. Dec. 62.

Note: 53 A. S. R. 100.

9. Daniels v. State, 2 Penn. (Del.) 586, 48 Atl. 196, 54 L.R.A. 286; Com. v. Leonard, 140 Mass. 473, 4 N. E. 96, 54 Am. Rep. 485.

10. Daniels v. State, 2 Penn. (Del.) 586, 48 Atl. 196, 54 L.R.A. 286; Wagner v. State, 107 Ind. 71, 7 N. E. 896, 57 Am. Rep. 79; State v. Northrup, 48 Ia. 583, 30 Am. Rep. 408; State v. Lindley, 51 Ia. 343, 1 N. W. 484, 33 Am. Rep. 139; Com. v. Leonard, 140 Mass. 473, 4 N. E. 96, 54 Am. Rep. 485; State v. Barth, 25 S. C. 175, 60 Am. Dec. 496; State v. Daley, 53 Vt. 442, 38 Am. Rep. 694; State v. Moyer, 58 W. Va. 146, 52 S. E. 30, 6 Ann. Čas. 344.

Notes: 11 Ann. Cas. 1190; Ann. Cas 1913E 22.

« ПретходнаНастави »