The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1883-12-13

term robbery. The 6S1Sih section of the statute
defines what shall constitute robbery, as fol-.
lows:
"SEC 6S1S. Whoever by force and violence or
py putting In feari steals and takes from the
person OF another is guilty of robbery
The material averments of the Indictment
that have to be established by the evidence be-
yond reasonable doubt, before verdict can be
rfghtfuly returned, are:
First-That Anderson Lackey is dead.
Second-That he was killed by pistol-shot
wound at the hands of another
Third-That such shooting took place in this
county, and that it occurred on or about the
28th day of April, A. d. 1888.
Fourth-That the shooting was dore by La
ban Stephens, the defendant, or by Luke or
William Jones, named in the Indictment, while
he, the defendant, was aiding, abetting and as
sisting in the commission or the attempt to
commit the crime of robbery named in the in
dictment.
Fifth-That such shooting was unlawfully,
purposely and maliciously done, with the in
teni to kill and murder Anderson Lackey, NAM
ed in the Indictment.
The defendant to the charge contained in the
indictment interposed his plea of mot Guilty.
The effect of this plea is to cast the State the
burthen of proving each and every material
averment of the indictment and element neces-
sary to constitute the crime charged in the in
dictment, to that degree of certainty that salts
ffes your mind beyond q reasonable doubt.
Here the Court fully defined the phrase rea-
sonable doubt, as well as the words malice and
criminal intent, and the three degrees of homi-
cide.I
To determine these questions of fact of course
YOU will consider and carefully weigh all the
evidence in the case and all the circumstances
proven.
Then gentlemen, if you find beyond reason
able doubt, from all the evidence, that the de-
fendant and those acting with him, If any, un-
lawfully and maliciously did assault and shoot
Anderson Lackey, with intent to kill as charg-
ed in the Indictment, but fail to find that the
defendant and such others were attempting to
perpetrate robbery, then your verdict would
have to be guilty of murder in the second de-
gree. But if you find that such killing was un-
lawful, and done while the defendant or Other
person or persons named in the indictment and
| acting with him, was in the commission OF an
unlawful act and that such killing was by the
accidental discharge of revolver, as claimed by
| ty of manslaughter.
If you find from the evidence that there was
but one of the persons charged in the indict-
ment, did the shooting that caused the death
| of Anderson Lackey, and that such shooting
was maliciously done with the intent to kill,
you must be satisfied from the evidence beyond
reasonable doubt, that the defendant, Laban
Stephens, did such shooting, or that he was
present. aiding abetting and assisting by act,
word or deed, the person who actually did such
shooting. before you can find him guilty as
charged in the first count of the Indictment. If
you find from the evidence beyond reasona-
| BILE doubt that Anderson Lackey named in the
| Indictment was unlawfully, malicously and in
tentionaly killed, and the killing was the joint
act or the defendant and another or others
| named in the Indictment, then, before you can
find the defendant guilty of murder in the first
degree as charged in the indictment, you must
| further find that such killing took place while
he and such other person persons were at
TEN pting to perpetrate a robbery on the person
| of Anderson Lacl1ey.
You are also further instructed, that, if you
find from the evidence beyond a reasonable
doubt, that the defendant, Laban StapheEs, en-
tered into agreement and conspiracy with
Luke Jones, and William Jones, named in the
indictment, or either of them. to commit the
crime of robbery on the person of Anderson
Lackey, as charged in the first count of the in
dictment, and it also further appears from the
evidence and the agreement and conspiracy, If
any, that in the attempt to perpetrate the rob-
| berry, when tested by experience and common
sense, and viewed in the light of the evidence.
that in so attempting to carry into effect the
purpose of the conspiracy, 1t would probably
or necessarily require the use of force and vio-
lence, which would be likely under all the cir
cumstanc ces to result in the taking of life un-
| lawfully, maliciously and purposely, then and
upon such finding each and all the persons,
who were parties to such agreement and con-
spiracy, must be held liable for every un1aw-
full act, either any of his co-conspirators did,
in furtherance of the common design, If he was
present, aiding and assisting at the time the
shooting and killing was done. Bat the defea-
can't cannot be rightfully and lawfully convict
ed of the crime charged in the indictment, un-
less you find from the evidence he either ex-
pressly or by fair implication, established by
the evidence beyond reasonable doubt, gave
his assent to the act of shooting and taking the
life of Anderson Lackey, in the perpetraton of
O robbery, as charged in the first count of the
indictment. Then, gentlemen of the jury, what
what say you in view of all the evidence, is the
defendant guilty as charged in the indictment
of either of the degrees of crime for homicide,
have explained? If so, you will say SO by your
verdict, to be returned and announced in open
Court in accordance with your finding, whatev-
er it may be, through one of your number as
| foreman. If the State has failed to establish
any degree of crime charged in the Indictment
| to the certainty have explained, your verdict
will be "Not Guilty"
You may take the case, and bear in mind du-
ring your retirement and deliberations, that
the life of the prisoner is SO far in your hands.
that it depends entirely on the verdict you may
return, and also remember yours is one of the
most responsible and trying positions man can
be called on to occupy.
You have each with uplifted hand in the pres
ence of God and man taken solemn oath, that
you will well and truly try and true deliver
ance make, between the State of Ohio and the
prisoner at the bar, Laban Stephens, as you
shall answer to God in the great day.
You are cautioned, then, gentlemen of the
jury, not to be governed by prejudice, by public
clamor or the opinions of any person but your
Selves but decide the guilt or innocence of La
ban Stephens like upright honest and unbiased
men, upon the facts and circumstances from
the evidence you find them to exist, and the
law of the case as now given you in charge.
In this way, and this way alone, can you per-
form your duty as jurors.
The case is one of all Importance to the pris-
oner and of most importance to the State. Death
must follow conviction if found guilty charg-
ed in the Indictment, and if the prisoner is really
innocent, to subject him to such punishment
would be stain and blot upon the law and
the courts of Ohio, never to be wiped out, and
wholly eradicated.
But it the defendant actually committed this
vengeance of an outraged law, would be to
make the administration of the laws of Ohio a
fraud and sham.
The whole responsibility of determining this
case now rests on you, ana now commit the
case to your hands in full confidence that your
patient, impartial, full aid faithful considera-
ton will result in a fair, true, and honest ver-
dict.
The jury remained in their room
about three-quarters Of an hour, and
returned a verdict of guilty of mur-
der in the first degree.
State Of Ohio VS.. Andrew Keeton.
Defendant plead guilty to an indict-
nent for assault and battery. There