Daily press and Dakotaian. [volume] (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1875-1880, 1879-10-18


Saturday Evening, Oct. 10, 1879.
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.
PUBLiSMED BY AUTHORITY.
e. q. SMITH. Reporter.
In THE SUPREME COURT OF H TrRR,.
TORY OF DAKOTA, AT JUNE TERN, 1879.
TnE TERRITORY OF Dakota.
Defendant in error.
WILLIAM GAY, Plaintiff in error.
Appeal from the judgment Of the District
Court Of Lawrence county.
Continued.
10 the case of the people ". Sanchez.
a California p II, the defendant was in.
dicted for murder, BY the jury found guilty.
and an appeal was taken to the supreme
court.
In The court below the Judge wa asked
to instruct the jury Is to murder in the
second degree, aud m~anslaughter, which in.
struction thec court refused to give.
The supreme court say, this request was
properly refused that no instruction should
be given to q jury which is not predicated
upon some theory logically deducible from
at least some portion of the testimony.
Again in this same case the court saws
there are certain kinds of murder which
carry with them conclusive evidence Of pre-.
meditation. These cases are of two classes.
First, when the killing is perpetrated BY
means of poison. Here the means used is held
to be conclusive evidence of p%remsditation.
The second is where the killing is done
In the preparation or the attempt to perpe-
trate come one of the ~felonies enumerated
in the statute. Here the occasion is made
conclusive evidence Of generalization.
When the case comes within either of these
classes the test question, is the killing,
willful deliberate and p%remeditated is an.
swered by the statute itself, and the JUN haze
no option but to find the prisoner gully of mur.
der In the first degree.
The deduction from this authority il this,
where the killing is perpetrated BY means
of poison, or where the killing is perpetra-
ted in an attempt to commit come one OF
the %felonies enumerated in the statute, the
law itself declares the existence of prened-
itated design to murder, and when the case
comes within either of these classes the iury
has no option but to find the prisoner guilty
of murder IN the first degree. To nav to
the jury, you have no option but to declare
the prisoner guilty of murder in the first
degree, without qualification, is using much
stronger language than to say to the jury,
assume the killing 10 be established. there
being no evidence TO justify or excuae, if you
regard the oath you have taken, your yer.
dict must be murder or granddaughter. Has
it occurred to counsel that by bringing the
the evidencePin this case by bill of excep.
tions before this court, as we'll az by admis
sion upon the argument, they have furnish
ed this court with indubitable evidence tina
there was neither excuse or qualification TO-
the homicide; and that when they urge
that the defendant has been prejudiced b,
the instruction to the jury, that they ar
here asserting that the judge was a usupel
in properly declaring the Law, and admon
ishing the jury that they must observe it, o
they would be violating their oath. Jurie
should plainly understand that they mus
respect the law, and that their verdicts mui
he based upon The evidence and that whe
they depart from this rule, their moral tut
pitude il no less censurable than that of tn
judge who wantonly sets Ut defiance the Law
he has sworn to observe. The fact that tn
jury has the physical power to pronounce
verdict false in fact, in no way j%usti6es thei
moral delinquency in 80 doing.
The people vs.. Estrand, 40, Cal. p III
the defendant was convicted Of murde
in the county Of Sacramento and sentence,
to be hung, and by appeal the case was Re
moved to the supreme court of California
jury Is to what constituted manslaughtel
which request was refused. McKinstry jus
tice in delivering the opinion of the coul
says "There was some evidence which
true. would tend to establish the innocenc
Of defendant, but there was no evidence o
which the jury could have properly foun'
that the killing was done in q heat of pas
sion, therefore the refusal to instruct tn
Jury as to what constituted granddaughter
was not error"
In this case the court determined, thel
was no evidence rs to heat of passion an
would not permit the jury to consider tn
question of manslaugh,er.
In the case at bar the court says there
no evidence to justify or excuse and will n,
permit the jury to consider that question.
The people vs.. farley SO California,
469, the defendant was convicted of murd,
in the first degree, in the district court Ca
fornia.
After judgment an appeal was taken to til
supreme court. The court says, it appea,
by the bill of exceptions. that the homicit
was committed by the prisoner with a dea'
" weapon, that the supposed provocatio
given BY deceased was insulting and abusi,
Language when very drunk and when Il
deceased was walking awav from him.
/. The jury found the prisoner guilty
murder in the first degree, and thereto
adjudged to suffer death. Defendants cou
sci in the court below asked the court to i
struct the jury, that if the prisoner did u
lawfully but without malice kill deceas'
upon a sudden quarrel, or in the heat
passion, the killing would not be mud
but mansiaughter only. This instructi'
----S .H-N-f Eat 81 4#Hss