The Daily times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1886-1889, 1888-07-12
THE G0DSEY TRIAL.
INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN THE Jury By
THE COUKT

(n.e Given to thcJ"rN' "h" sre 'h""'"
~ ,r,cc supposed to stand Ten to Two
forAcquittai.
The trial Of William H. Godsey, on the
charge Of The murder of David Glass,
WAS continued in the Hastings Court
Yesterday
The court met at II o'clock and some
time was spent in reading the record
and The Judges instructions, which are as
follows
INsTRUCUOS or THE COURT.
The Court instructed the jury as fol-
iow-
F,r.t-Muider is the unlawful killing
of any pcrsOn with malice afOrethOught.
Second Murder Is distinguished by
the laws Of Virginia as murder in the
first degree and as murder in the second
degree.
Third-Eycry homicide in Virginia is
presumed 10 be murder in the second de-
gree i'm order 10 elevate the oiiense.
10 murder in the first the burden OF
proof is upon The Commonwealth, and
to reduce the ofIeHse 10 manslaughicr
the burden Of proof is upon The prisoner.
Fourih-To constitute murder in the
first degree the prisoner must have been
jncited 10 the Killing by malice and the
killing by murder, and the killing must
have been = willful, deliberate and pre-
moditatcd act on the part OF The prisoner.
That is TO say. hc not have willed, de
liberated and premedilated that he should
liUthe decease or do him some serious bod
iy injury, the necessary result of which
would be his death and from which he
died. Whenever the killing is williully
deliberate and premeditated, the law IN
fers malice from the fact, in the absence
of proof 10 The contrary. and the burden
of disproying such motive is upon the
accused
A mortal wound given with deadly
weapon i'm the previous possession OF the
SLAYER without any or upon very slight
provocalOn Is prima iacie prcmeditaied,
willful deliberate killing, in the absence
of proof, and throws upon the accused
the necessity Of proving extenuating cir
Cumstanccs.
TO constitute a willful, deliberate and
premeditaied killing, il is not
necessary that an intention to
KIN should be for any particular
length Of time prior TO the actual killing
It's only necessary that such intention
should come into existence for the first
time at the time of such killing or any
time previous.
When homicide IS committed upon
pray0cati0n, il must appear that the pro
vocation was considerable and not slight
only In order TO reduce the otlense Ia
man4laughtcr, and the jury are instructed
that To sustain prOyOcaliOn as defense To
murder in the first degree, it must be
shown that the prisoner, at the time the
mortal wound was given, was deprived Of
the power of self-conlrol by the prOvOca-
tion which he had received, and in decid-
inr the question whether that was or was
not The case, regard must be had TO the
character Of the provocatiOn TO the
nature Of the act 10y which death was
caused 20 The terms which elapsed be
tween the prOyOCaliOn and the act winch
caused death: to the offenders conduct
during The interval, aud to all the cir
cumstanccs ending to show the state Of
his mind at the time he committed the
act
Although tie jury may believe from
the evidence that the prisoner gave the
wound which killed the deceased during
a quarrel, yet if they further believe
from The evidence, beyond reasonable
doubt, that the quarrel was provoked and
brought on by the prisoner with the OBJ
iect tO provoke deceased 90 strike him, IN
order tO have prcicXt 20 take his HE,
or with the intention 10 take his life if
he should strike him, and that the pii,-
oner dil then give the mortal wound
from which the deceased died, as charged
in the Indictment thon they are in
stmcted that such an act constitutes a
willful, deliberate, and preueditalcd
killing. and as such is murder in The first
degree.
Ii the jury believe from the evidence
that the killing aforesaid was malicious
hut not willfui, deliberate aud premcdi-
lated, then such killing was murder in
the second degree.
When death cDsues on a sudden provo
cation or sudden quarrel without malice
prepense, The killing is manslsughter,
and in order 10 reduce the oifense To-
killing in seli-defense, the prisoner must
prove two things
First hat before the mortal blow was
given. he declined further combat and
had retreated as far as he could with
safety.
SecOnd-lie killed the deceased through
the necessity OF preserving his own life
or to save himself from great bodily
harm.
The Court further instructs the jury
that if they believe from the evidence
that al The time of The alleged assault the
deceased made an attack upon the pris-
oner apparently with the intent to do
him great bodily harm, and that the
prisoner act was the result Of reason.
able apprehension on his part, honestly
entertained; that his act was necessary to
protect him from great bodily harm,
then threatened, then this jury should
fnd The accused not guilty.
The Court instructs the jury that per
son need not be in actual imminent peril
of his iife or of great bodily harm before
he may slay his assaient II is sufficient
II, i'm good faith, he has a reasonable be
lief from the facts as they appear TO lim
ut the tine that he Is in such immediate
pcril hut the Jury are further instruct.