The comet., 1880-04-17
GEORGE, G. j..


| HEoKGE, " J.'
/. We think the Court erred in refusing
the charge.
2. 1t is true that when the question sub
mitted to jury is alone as to the guilt OIL
| innocense of the accused, they have
nothing to do with the punishment to be
inflicted in case they render u verdict OF
guilty. Their duty is simply to find the
fact of guilt or innocence, according to the
| evidence before them, and a charge from
the Court us to the punishment to follow
conviction could have no other effect than
to deter them from dlscharging their duty
But in this case that was not the sole
question submitted to the jury they are
invested by law with the power and charg-
ed with the duty of determining which OF
spunishments shall be inflicted.
3. 1t was necessary element in deter
mining whether the imprisonment for life
| should be inflicted for the jury to know
| whether Il milder or greater punishment
might, or must necessarily, be inflicted
in case of their omission to aftiX imprison-
ment.
4. We are not authorized to assume, as
an answer to this view, that the jury were
well acquainted with the law condemning
the prisoner to death, in case they failed
to impose Imprisonment.
5. 1t is true that as to business transac-
tiOns and civil conduct, every man is pre-
sumed to know the law. This presump-
tion we know in most instances to be false,
and is INDUCED in only from a necessity
which mainly arises from the impossibility
of determining how much or how little of
law any man knows. but this presumption
is exactly the contrary as to jurors, so far
as it relates to principles of law applicable
to the case before them, and about which
the Court is asked to charge them. As to
these, they are presumed to know nothing,
and to derive all their knowledge from the
Court.
g. Under the present system of selecting
jurors in this State, it is not incredible to
suppose that one member at least of some
one jury might be ignorant of that, or any
other named principle of law.
Reversed and new trial granted.
CHALMERS, j., dissenting,
Held
l. The jury have nothing to do with the
punishment which the law affiXes to Il con-
yiction of guilt and the accused has no
right to demand that the jury shall be
instructed with regard to it. The punish
ment which the law affieXs to the crime of
murder i'll this State, is death, and that
punishment follows by operation of law
upon a verdict of guilty.
2. This punishment the jury may, if they
elect so to do. commute into imprisonment
for life. When they have been by the
Court instructed as to their prerogative in
this regard, they have received all the
information which the accused has the
right to demand that they shall receive.
3. The charge failed to inform the jury
what action they should take if they were |
unanimous in deeming him guilty but |
failed to agree as to the punishment. The |
charge was therefore modified by the Court |
so as to announce to them the rule laid |
down in Green V. The State, % Miss, 454 |
to the effect that in such event il was their |
duty to return general verdict of guilty. /
In the modification the statement that if |
they failed to afiix the punishment of inn
prisonment the law affixed the punishment
of death, was omitted
see no reason why il should have been
omitted, neither can | see any legal right
that the accused had to demand that it
shall be given.