The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1880-03-11

malice2 What is deliberate and premed-
itated malice2 One Of FOUR most eminent
Judges has defined malice to'beI "a will.
fully formed design to do another an un-
lawful injury, whether such design be
prompted by deliberate hatred or revenge,
or by the hope of gain, or springs from
the Wantonness and depravity Of a heart
regardless of social duty, and fatally bent
on mischief" And what is deliberate
and premeditated malice was elucidated
by our Supreme Courtin late case. The
Judge announcing Its decision in that
case says;
ITO constitute deliberate and premed'
itated malice the intention to do the iDju-
ry must have been deliberated upon, and
the design to do 1t formed before the act
was done, though it is not required that
either should have been for any consider
able time before, This supposes that the
party by reflection understood what he
was about to do, and intended to do 1t in
order to do harm. If the party has actu-
ally formed the purpose maliciously to
kill, and deliberated and premeditated
up on 1t, before he performs the act, he
is guilty of murder in the first degree,
however short the time may have been
between the purpose and its execution"
AS to the proof of deliberate and pre-"
meditated malice, This n generally es>
tablisbed by circumstantial evidence
Thus 1t may be shown, that preparations
were made by the prisoner for the pur>
pose of committing the homicide, such as
procuring and preparing the instrument
which was used to cause the death; the
selection of the place where the killing
was to be, and was done; forming the
plan how it was to be effected, and the
end designed or purpose for which 1t was
to be done.
In the present case the State claims,
that the proof clearly shows that the pris-
oher purposed to kill the deceased, of del
iberste and premeditated malice. Itclaims
that the proof shows, that he formed a
design and plan, to kill Spuhler, in order
to prevent him from testifying against
the prisoner Sammet in certain crimi-
nal prosecution then pending against
him, said Sammet, in the Court of Cons
mon Pleas of this county, on charge OF
burglary and larceny; which was set
for trial on the 26th day of November,
1879, fin which case the deceased was
subppensed as witness for the State,
and to testify against said Sammet That
the prisoner attempted to influence and
induce the deceased either not to testify
against him in that case, or to testify
falsely in his, Sammet's favor, and on
his refusing to do-so, and stating that he
would appear on the trial Of the cause
the prisoner uttered threats against him,
and formed the design to kill him, and
on several occasions In the presence OF
witnesses declared with oaths and inns
precautions, that he would kill the de-
ceased, That he purchased revolver
and procured cartridges to carry out his
deathly design; and that on the evening
before the expected trial he enticed the
deceased to accompany him to the pls ce
where the unfortunate youth was then
shot and killed. If these facts be clearly
proven, as the State claims they are, by
the evidence before you, they might we'll
authorize the jury to find that the kill
ing, if proved to have been done by the
prisoner, was purposed by him, and OF
his deliberate and premeditated malice.
The prisoner, however, denies that the
facts mentioned are true, or that they are at
Ill established by the proof 1t is for the
jury to determine what the proof is in
this, as in all other respects, and form
their conclusions from the facts whichthey
find to be established by the proof.
Finally, there remains to be consider
cd, the great and important question pre-
sented by the issue. Did the accused in
fact shoot and kill the deceased, Christie
pher SpuhlerP
The evidence offered by the State, to
prove that 1t was in fact the prisoner that
shot and killed the deceased, is circum-
stantial, Yoluminous and mostimportant,
After the searching discussion of counsel
of both sides, deem 1t unnecessary to
reoapitulate the facts claimed to be prov
ed either on the one side or on the other.
You will not fail to consider, sift and
weigh all the evidence in the case, in orr
der to arrived at correct conclusions re"
speeting this issue. You are the judges
of all matters and questions of fact pre-
sented by the issue. On the part.of the
Court, and as a matter of law, 1 can only
saw, that a series of facts, chain of cirN
cumstanees, such as may have natural
tendency to prove the guilt of the prison.
or, and to point him out as the party who
did the dreadful act Of shooting and kill
ing the deceased such d concatenatiop
of facts, or chain of circumstances, II
fairly and satisfactorily established by the
proof may we'll suffice to prove beyond
reasonable doubt, that 1t was the ac-
cused that did The shooting and killing;
and have already said, that the purpose
to kill, and that the killing was done OF
deliberate and premeditated malice, may
in like manner be proved by circumstan-
tial evidence.
You will carefully consider and weigh
all the testimony before you, and faith>
fully and impsrtially determine the issue
as the proof and the law will make II
your duty to determine it. You will do
this fearlessly and without hesitation,
whether in the honest discharge of your
duty you may have to pronounce BY your
verdict the guilt or innocence Of the pris.
oner. In either case, after honestly dis
charging your duty, you cannot be held
responsible for the consequences, They