Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1882-01-16
JURISDICTION IN euITEAvs TRIAL.
An Able Letter by an Emineat West
Virginia Jurist.
10 ne Eifitor ofne Reoisfer


A communication in the REGISTER
questioning the jurisdiction of the court
trying Guiteau has drawn the writer's
attention to this interesting and i'm
portant legal point. A notable obscurity
or uncertainty Of opinion has been mani
Tested by the ablest journals on this
question; and, indeed, it is not free from
difficulty.
President Garfield received the mortal
shot in the District of Columbia, and
died in New Jersey. Where should
Guiteau be tried? We answer that he
may be lawfully be tried in the District
of Columbia.
The act of Congress, Revised Statutes,
sec. $3.50, says: EVERY person who COM
mits murder within any fort, arsenal,
dock-yard, magazine, or in any other
place or district of country under the
executive Jurisdiction of the United
States shall suffer death"
Section T29 enaets that, ''the trial of
offenses punishable with death shall be
had in the county where the Oftnse
was committed, where that can be done
without great Inconvenience" Thus
il is an OfienSe against the United States,
and must be tried where it was commit
ted. Where was il committed-in the
District of Columbia or in New Jersey?
We answer, in the District, because
there the mortal wound was given.
This mortal wound constitutes the
wrongful act, the direct and immediate
cause of death; and death was simply
a result flowing from the act. Tue
murderer was not in New jersey at the
time of the death, and did not partici-
pate i'll the act or Ope alton Of death,
viewed separately from the shot caus ng
il: but what he had to do with the
death, had been done at prior time
and another place. 1t Is true, that with
out death there would have been no
murder; but where death enSues from a
blow, il is that blow which is the muir
der as respects the present point. 1t
would seem in common sense Us well n
in law, the place where the wound is
given Is the place where the Oitense is
committed.
Bishop, the greatest of American
criminal law writers, in discussing the
question where the trial should be where
the blow is inflicted in on county
and death in occurs another,
both Fin the same State, in l
Criminal Procedure, Sec. o., says, that
Courts are said to have aucientiy doubt
ed. whether if a blow were inflicted in
one county and death followed in
another, the offence could be prosecuted
in either; though Is show n in Note D on
the high common law authorities Of
Hale, East, Coke and Hawkins, the
more common ancient opinion was that
he might he indicted where the stroke
was given, And Patterson, F., said i'll
RCr V. HGrgrpre, ''thc giving Of the
blow which caused the death constitutes
the felony" Note to same Section.
This difficulty, suggested ancientlX by
some Courts, was frequently avoided,
says SJarkie, by crrrying the dead body
baCY into the County where the blow
was struck, and there the jury might
inquire of the stroke and death. But
the true view appears says Bishop,
ito be that the blow is murder or not
according Us il produces death within a
year ana a day or not; and therefore
in all cases an indictment lies in the
County where the blow is given. Ii
death takes place out ostLe County, the
question pOSSb'y involves another
principle, conducting to u different re-
suit, but probably not; and therefore We
may doubt the sJundness of Virginia
decision holding that where man Is
stabbed in one state and dies OF his
wounds in anUther,thc offender cannot
he held in the former State for murder
The case thus assaulted by Bishop IS the
same relied on by your correspondent,
decided by the General Court Of Virginia
i'm lS2o. Commonwealth V. LiRtOa, > Va.
Gases, ~, where the staObiug took
place ina Ohio County, Virginia, and
the death i'm Jefferson Co., Ohio; and
it was held the accused could be held to
answer ia Ohio County only for stab
hing, not for murder.
Bishop discussing the very question
now in issue, the case where the blow
is i'm one State or Country, the death in
another, refers 10 an English statute
providing that where one is stricken ut
sea or anywhere out of England, and
dies in England, the offender might be
tried where the death occurred, and
cites decision upon it that where q
person was beaten on an American ship
and died i'm England, the accused could
not he tried in England, and says
Criminal Law, sec. IS, THAT according
TO that case the crime, in q felonious
homicide, consists in the mfiictiOn OF
the blow, and that the act of dying,
which is performed by the party in
iured, does not eater into the crime IN
any measure; for, if it did, the English
court would have had jurisdiction. And
this doctrine accordS with what was be-
fore laid town in an English case where
il was held, that o homicide is COM
mitted in county, if the blow Is in
flicted in it, though death takes place
elsewhere. This is plainly the true
doctrine, though in our work on Criminal
Procedure we shall see that 1t has not
always been in the minds of the judges
And in Section Ill. he says: "And the
doctrine may he laid down generally,
IN respect to States, as IN respect 20
countries, that, if complete offence IL
committed in the locality of the pro =
ecution, quite immateriai is it what
is done or attempted in a
foreign locality. 1t has, indeed, been
held by some tribunals, rs we have
seen. tlat when a blow is inflicted on
the high seas, and death follows on
land: or i'm one State and the person eX-
pires in another, there can be no indlct-
mont for the murder as committed IN
the former place; but even this doctrine,
which we also saw does not rest well on
principle, proceeds simply on the error
that tie murder is not complete where
the blow is given" Is not the crime
comDlPte. so far as the accused Is con-
cerned, when ne has dealt the deadly
blow His part in the bloody drama is
acted. The next scene may shit TO
another locality, but he is not an actor
i'm il: and whether death or recovery
come to the victim in that scene, 1t only
increases or diminishes the degree or
severity of the punishment. Does it not
seem repugnant to reason that a State
having in custody culprit who, in her
territory, has fired mortal ball shall not
hold him to answer to her for murder
only because his victim runs bleeding
across the line or seeks a balm Tor MS
wound i'm another State, and there eX-
pires" Whose law did he violate? Are
not the views of BISHOP sound? III
Guiteau were tried in a state court IN