The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1874-03-19

minds of the jurors in that condition that they
cannot say they feel an abiding conviction to a
moral certainty, of the truth of the charge. 1t
is not sufficient to establish a probability,
though strong one, arising from the doctrine
of chances; that the fact is more likely to be
true than the coiitrary hut the evidence must
establish the truth of the fact, to reasonable
and moral certainty-a certainty that convinces
and directs the understanding, and satisfies the
reason and Judgment of those who are found
to act conscientiously.
That William Franklin johnson is dead, that
he was killed by gunshot wound in the head,
at the time stated in the Indictment, these are
material facts, and Trust be found to be true,
from the evidence, or the defendant is not
guilty. Did the defendant kill William Frank
lin johnson, and did she do it purp osely and
with deliberate and premeditated malice?
First, then Did the defendant fire the fatal
shot at the deceased that caused his death, and
did she do purposely? If she did, then, by so
doing, did she intend TO kill the deceased? All
sane persons are presumed to intend whatever
is the natural and probable consequences of
their acts. If then there was the killing of the
deceased by the defendant, in the manner, and
by the means stated in the indictment, and the
natural and probable consequence of the use of
such weapon, and manner of its use, was to
produce death, then the intention aid purpose
to kill is made out and the defendant must
stand legally responsible for it.
Was the killing malicious? Malice is either
express or implied. Express malice is proved
by evidetice of deliberately formed design to
kill another, and such design may be shown
from the circumstances of the act, such as the
deliberate selection and use of lethal weapon,
knowing it to be such, priviy lying in wait a
previous quarrel or grudge; the preparation of
poison, or other means of doing great bodily
harm, or the Ike.
Implied or constructive malice is an inference
or conclusion by law upon the facts found by
the jury. Malice is implied where the killing is
sudden, without any great provocation, and
also where the act done is so reckless, wanton,
inhuman and cruei; IS necessarily to show a
depraved heart, devoid of social duty, and fatal
ly bent on mischief The law of this State is
that when the killing is established, the malice
is presumed. When the fact ofkilling is proven
it raises presumption of purpose and malice,
and is nitrder IN tfs sescrd degree, if there be
no explanatory circumstances in the evidence
of the State, and none proven by the accused.
Did the defendant kill William Franklin
johnson with premeditation and deliberation?
| These are operations of the mind, They require
the exercise of reason, reieetton, Judgment and
| decision: The act is premeditated, and deliber-
| ate, if the defendant nieditated upon the pur-
pose to KILL deliberated upon 1t, and coolly
formed the design to XIII before firing the fatal
| shot. Did she reason and reflect upon it, and
| turn it over in her mind, and with deliberation
and premeditation form the purpose before the
act was done? If she did the length of time
between forming the design, and its execution,
| is immaterial.
These are the material facts in the charge.
Are they proven :? shall not alIude to the ev
| idence in detail. 1 have no doubt it is fresh in
your recollection. will only call your atten-
| ton to the prominent points claimed. The
State las 6dlIed as witness Samuel Hayth.
He has given his testimony before you, and it
is rarely indeed that one of his years is COM
! PEELED to pass through such terrible scene as
/ that which he witnessed on that fatal 24th day
| of November last He tells you how he was
| dismissed, with others from school, at recess
| about o'clock how he started on his way
| home, with his companion, Trahkie johnson,
as he called him how they proceeded their
way, following the path across The fields and
premises of The defendant until they came to
| the fatal spot back of the orchard fence, where
| he says that he heard the report of a gun, and
and frankie fell to the ground. He heard some
| one say; ''There Is che uead," looked around
| and saw the defendant in the orchard with her
| gun how he called 10 frankie to get up and
he did not and then the terrible truth flashed
| upon his mind, that he was alone with his
| dead companion, and he then began that re-
treat, in the direction from whence he came,
hearing. He tells you the route he took, the
circuit he made, the objects that he saw, and the
| persons whom ne said he saw, what he said and
| what he heard, and Whithet he went and his tes-
| timony given before you, forms the basis of the
! theory upon which the State makes this charge
against the defendant. They have called the
| little girls, Ida Dickson and Emma Heinke,
| and other witnesses, and they claim that by
the testimony of the witnesses, and the facts
1
as made is proven. You have heard the theory
of the defense, the statements of witnesses, the
| testimony of Ella Tilton, the grand daughter of
| the defendant, and the testimony of the de-
fendant herself denying the commission of the
| act, and stating where she was, and what was
| her conduct on the fatal day, and the facts and
circumstances which it Is claimed support and
confirm the statements of the witnesses for the
defense. What the evidence is, what facts and
| circumstances have been proven, What is the de-
| gree OF credit to be given to the witnesses,
whether the charge is proven not, is solely
and exclusively the province of the jury to de-
| termine.
Under this indictment the defendant may be
found guilty of any of the degrees of homicides
| known to our law. If it is proven that the de-
| fendant purposely, and of her deliberate and
| premeditated malice, killed the deceased, she
4 is guilty charged, IF murder in the first de-
| gree and the jury ought not to find her guilty
of any less crime. If without delibera ton and
| premedItation, the defendant purposely and
maliciousy killed the deceased, she is guilty of
murder in the second degree. If without mall
ice, although purposely and unlawfully done,
| it is manslaughter. Although charged with
murder in the first degree, the jury may deter
mine from the evidence whether the defendant
is guilty of either of the grades of homicide, or
whether guilty at all.
If you find the defendant guilty, you will
specify in your verdict of what crime you find
| her guilty-whether of murder in the first de-
gree, murder iu the second degree, or man
slaughter and also under what count in the in
dictment you find her guilty. The counts vary
simply in the statements as to the manner in
which the gun was loaded. 1t you find her not
| guilty you will simply so say in your verdict.
| And now gentleman, this case is about to be
committed to you for decision. Weightier in
| terests are rarely committed to the decision of
men. Examine the evidence in the case with
a view of ascertaining the truth, and If after
so doing, you feel an abiding conviction, to
naOrGI certainty, that the defendant is guilty, it
will be your duty, unpleasant as it may be, to
so say. If, however, you are not satisfied of the
guilt Of the defendant, but have reasonable
doubt in regard to it, it will be your duty, as
have no doubt it would be your pleasure, to
pronounce verdict of acquittal.
After the foregoing charge had been read to
| the jury, they were taken by the Sheriff to
| their supper, and then retired to their room,
and at fifteen minutes past twelve o'clock re-
| turned a verdict of manslaughter Notice
given of motion for new trial, the jury were
discharged, and Court adjourned until half past
eight o'clock on Monday morning.
SEVENTH DAY.