Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1888-10-12
JUDGE VEAZEY'S CHARGE
TO TIE JURY
In the Case of the state ". Frank ~.
Dodge.

delivered IN the Windham County Court al New
fame, on Wednesday, oct.
The Indictment charges in substance that
the respondent murdered Jcnevra Knapp at
Dummerston on the 29th day of August last.
The proof of the charge involves the
proof of two distinct propositions first,
that the act itself was done and secondly,
that it was done by the person charged, and
by none other In other words, proof OF
the corpus detcii, as it is called and mean
ing literally the body Of the crime, and of
the identity of the respondent as the guilty
person.
The respondent has pleaded not guilty to
the Indictment. Under this plea he says,
anybody, but died natural death and,
second, if she was killed, he is not the
guilty party.
The first claim is in its nature "a prelimi.
nary issue to the other, which is the ulti-
mate issue in the case. If you find no death
by violence administered 10y somebody, then
that ends the case. If you find the crime,
charged upon the respondent, was commit
ted 10y somebody, then you come to the
question whether the respondent was that
person Your duty under your oath is to
decide this case according to law, upon the
evidence given in court upon the trial.
Now, in order to do this, 1t is the duty Of
the court to tell you what the law, appica
hle to the evidence as you have heard 1t, Is.
Therefore before alluding 10 the evidence
and its application TO the respective ISSUES
Of fact, ! will proceed to state the rules to
guide you in deciding these issues.
CORPUS DELICT1.
TO guard against the danger Of convict
- IN
the rule Is established that the accused shall
not be convicted unless the death be first
distinctly proved, either 10y direct evidence
Of the fact or 10y inspection Of the body,
which was done III this case And even
when the body has been found, and although
Indications ui violent death be manifest,
It still shall he fully and satisfactorily prov
ed that the death was neither occasiuned 10y
natural causes, by accident, nor by the act
of the deceased himself The rule Is, ON
this point, that special care should be exer-
rsed as to whether crime has been com.
mitted and there should be no conviction
except where this part Of the case is proved
with particular ceurness and certainty.
1t may be proved that death was caused
by the intentional and malicious act of some
body, by circumstantial evidence as well a
hy positive or direct evidence. In this case
the state relies solely on circumstantial evi
demce to establish this fact but when the
cpiJ,,, deiich is attempted to be shown 10y
circumstantiul evidence. 1t must be 50 Is
tablished as to positively exclude all uncer
tainty or doubt from the minds of the jury
Not that each particular circumstance must
Ice Of this conclusive character, but all com
blnrd must produce the same degree Of Ger
taintv a. positive proof. | consider tins "a
"a very loose and illogical statement, but
ind 1t laid down in this precise language II
"a decision of the supreme court, and there
fore adopt it.
But tins would not help You much with
out explaining what would be direct or pos
tive proof As shall later explain NOR,
fully when | come to speak specifically o
| circumstantlal evidence, direct or positive
evidence Is name or description OF a Ger
tain kind of evidence distinguished tron
/ clrcumstantial evidence. To illustrate /
/ n witness had testified that he saw a maj
/ 20 into that post Office and seize Miss KNAPP
/ by the throat or give her IA blow ON tn
/ head, or both, and she fell over and died, /
would bc what is called positive proof of 1t
/ But YOU would not then know with absolut
certainty, beyond all possibility of doubt
that that was true, the same as you woul
If YOU saw it yourself, because you coul
not know that the witness told the truth
But if on the whole Judging from his al
pearance and applying the tests Of truth
/ YOU could see no sufficient reason for di.
believing him. and 50 accepted him as truth
full, YOU would be justified in finding tn
fact as he told it, 1t would be what is cal
ed positive proof of 1t.
In this case there is no such evidence o
this point No one testified to having see
this woman killed, so the state attempts t
prove the fact by the other kind of evidence
called circumstantial, which | shall NOR
fully explain later Now, if the circuu
stances relied upon bring your minds up
the same degree Of satisfaction of the fac
that positive proof would, which was accept
ed as true, it is sufficient otherwise not
This is the rule, and it goes no further,
OFFENDERS CONDUCT AND OTHER THING