The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1877-11-22
OHIO US. JOHN L. SIDDALL.
Indictment for ManSlaugltGT.
ru t--" I ud
CHARGE OF THE COURT,


counts, in which the same charge is substantially
made, but with diversity of detail, more or less
important, rI.. ...-. ...t.
In the first count II is charged that the accused
on the 26th day of February, 1877, in and upon
one Matthew Mcclure "unlawfully, violently and
ftloniously did make an assault, and then and
there upon a sudden quarrel, unlawfully and
felonieusly did kill and slay the said Matthew
Mcclure"
In the second count It Is charged tnat the &C.
cused "0n the 26th day Of February, 1877, in and
upon the body of one Matthew Mcclure with
force and arms, and unlawful assault did make,
and him the said Matthew Mcclure, then and
there unlayfully aud forcibly, with the fists Of
him (the said accused) did strike beat and wound
and other wrongs to him the Isaid Matthew Nc
Clure then and there did Of which striking, beat
ing and woundlng he the said Mathew Mcclure,
then and there died, and so Chat the accused)
him the said Matthew Mcclure in manner and
form aforesaid unlawfully did kill and slay,
Our statute see Warren's Criminal Laws Of
Ohio, page 179), defues what shall be, Tor consti
tute the crime of manslaughter. In Ohio we
have no common law crimes or offences, and the
common law definitions .Of crimes and offences
are not necessarily applicable to the definitions Of
the crimes and offences made punishable by the
the statutes of Ohio they are only Applicable so
far as they may accord with the definitions of our
own statutes. The same may be said OF the laws
and decisions In criminal cases in our sister
States Therefore applicable only so far as they
may accord with our own statutes and decisions.
Our statute enacts: "That If any person shall un-
lawfully kill another without malice, either upon
sudden quarrel, or unintentlOnally while the
slayer is in the commission of some unlawfulact,
every such person shall be deemed guilty Of man
slaughter"
Our courts have given construction to this
statute, and they have held, that If the unlawful
killing be upon sudden quarrel, 1t matters not
whether the killing was malicious, or Intentional
or not, and though 1t may :have been malicious
and intentional, If 1t was done upon sudden
| quarrel It would still amount to no more than
manslaughter. And further, Iif the killing was
not done upon sudden quarrel, 1t would amount
to mansllughter only, If it was unlawful and un-
intentional, or If the killing was done by the ac-
cused, whilst he was In The commission Of some
unlawful act.
Now In both counts of Ithe indictment II is
charged that the accused made an assault upon
the person Of the accused, and killed and slew
him; it being averred in the first count that this
was done upon a sudden quarrel; whilst in the
seCoud count 1t is avevred that the accused did the
killing and Staying by upon sucn assault, with
his isIs, unlawfully striking, beating and wound
ing the deceased. In none of them is 1t averred
that the killing was either malicious or intention
al, or that II was done whilst the accused was In
the commission Of some unlawful act, unless 4
might be the act of assault and battery. The
charge therefore, is reduced to very narrow
compass in the present case, and the issue resolves
itself into the following formula Did the accused
kill and slay the deceased by unlawfully assault
ing and beating him, either upon sudden quar-
rel, or otherwise, unintentionally
OF course, gentlemen, you will understand thai
the charge In either of the counts embraces the
charge of an unlawful assault and battery, ant
that, though you might find the defendant no
guilty of the charge of manslaughter, you art
authorized to find the defendant guilty Of an as
sault and battery If the proof warrants 1t, Yor
have been told, on behalf of the defendant, tina
though he pleads mot guilty" of the charge o
manslaughter, he pleads guilty, as far as he ma!
be enabled or allowed to do So of the charge o
assault and battery and the jury is authorized Il
consider such confession and act upon 1t the sam,
as upon other evidence. 1t is scarcely necessar!
|
and battery. / may, however, state, that ap
preaching the person Of another in threatening
or menacing manner, within striking distance
and offering violence in threatening manner L
his person, without In fact inAiCting violence, 1
an ASSAULT and that any ruder attack upon, o
angry collision with, his body is battery.
The accused as I:have said, pleads mot guilty
to the charge of manslaughter, and your mail
l = ~ tg g,,,,n
of that charge In approaching the discharge o
this grave duty, this high trust, which the Law
devolves upon YOU 1t is all important and neCes
sary that you will bear in mind and never los
sight of, in your deliberations of the precauton
ary and salutary principles and rules of the law
to which, 1t islthe duty of the court to specially
} and dsolemnly call your attention. They shOul,
be the the polar star guiding you along your diff
cult path they are the only safeguards whicl
the wisdom and experience of the danger of tn
+ law, for many ages, have been able to devise 70
the guidance of juries, Consonant with the immu
table laws of justice and the rights and interest
of humanity.
The first great and fundamental principle, gov
: erning all criminal prosecutions, is, that the &C
! cused is to be taken as innocent, until his gull
! be fully proved. He is under the protection O
: this presumption of innocence, as if covered by
, shield, upon every step taken every progres
made in the trial of the cause or the delibera
tions of the jury until his guilt be fully estah
lished, beyond the existence of all REASONABLE
doubt and until his guilt be so established b!
the proof, he is never called upon to prove his IN
, nocerce Until his guilt be so proven, the laN
throws the whole garment of innocence owe
him.
The second of these fundamental principles
! which necessarily flows from The first, is, tina
the burden of proof to establish the guilt Of tn
accused, devolves exclusively upon the STATE
The burden of proof is upon the State to prov
affrmatively, every material ingredient necessar
to constitute the offence charged and as l hay
stated, the defendant is not called upon to prov
his innocence, until his guilt is proved by tn
! State The guilt must be proven ahitmativeI
and it cannot be assumed without such proof, i
any stage of the proceeding
, The third Of these great and fundamental pfr
cipes has reference TO the certainty Of the proc
required in criminal proceedings. It is this, tina
the guilt of the accused must be proven beyon
the existence of reasOnal doubt Every PAL
and branch of the charge, every material ingrC
dent Of the offense, must be so fully and clearl
proved, beyond the existence of every reasOnRbl
doubt before the fated verdict of guilty is autho
lied to be pronounced by the jury. You ar
aware that in all civil cases courts and juries 1
, deciding issues Of fact, are governed by fundG
mentally different rule or principle. It is theI
duty to decide the issues Of fact in civil case
upon fair preponderance, or weight of tine proc
They are to decide, by a preponderance of tn
proof, and according to The preponderance {
the proof, whether their minds are satisfied of tn
correctness of their decision or not. A greater e
gree of certainty of proof is not required, anC
: perhaps, is not practicable, in civil cases. The
J are TO be determined upon the weight ofthe proc
But in criminal cases, as those stated the guilt
J the accused must be proved; affirmauvely by tn
State beyond the existence of every reasonabl
doubt, before he can be declared guilty and pur
ished. 1t is not the interest of a civilized an
well organized State, good government, that Al
bitrary punishment be meted out to any of its ci
liens, unless proven guilty, with reasonable Gel
, tainty, and the humane and salutary princlpl
T has been adopted, and has prevailed for age
back, and Is often announced. in the most solem