The Hawaiian gazette., 1889-03-05

. l
hypothesis may still be true. The
true test is that the circumstances
proven must produce the absolute
conviction in your minds OF the guilt
of the defendant, and must exclude
any other conclusion ut which you
may arrive on weighing the evil
dence.N
The Court charged the jury that the
circumstantial evidence given must
be consistent with guilt and incon-
sistent with the innocence of the
defendant in order to convict defend
ant of murder. And also the Court
charged rs follows, from notes to
Commonwealth rs. Mchic, | Leading
/ Grim. Cases, pages $40 and S2l
"But if a defendant in criminal
case has n right to have the jury in
structed that they must be satisfied of
| his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,
| the question ariSes-what is reason
/ able doubt? 1t has been defined to
/ be IA doubt fer which u reason
! could be given. 1t certainly must be
1 a serious and substantial doubt, not
| the mere possibility of doubt. And
although jury might believe from
| the evidence that il was possible some
! other person than the defendant might
/ have committed the crimes it does
| not necessarily follow that they must
acouit. Absolute mathematical or
metaphysical certainty is in no case
| essential; moral certainty is all that
| is requisite. The proof should be such
as to control and decide the conduct
\ of men in the highest and most inn
portant affairs of life, and not a mere
| vague conjecture, u fancy, a trivial
supposition, bare possibility of in
nOcence. To acquit upon such doubts
! is virtual violation of 4 jurors oath.
| And if the whole evidence produces
| such n conviction in the minds of the
jury of the guilt of the prisoner as
they would act upon in Il matter of
the highest Importance to themselves
in like case, it is their duty to con-
Wet. The evidence need not exclude
every possible hypothesis, but the
guilt of the defendant. In Com. rs.
Webster, Cush., $50, Chief Justice
Shaw said Il reasonable doubt is not
mere possible doubt, because every
thing relating to human affairs, and
depending on moral evidence, is open
TO some possible or imaginary doubt.
1t is that state of the case which, after
the entire comparison and considera-
ton of all evidence, leaves the minds
of the jurors in that condition that
they cannot say they feel an abiding
conviction to n moral certainty of the
truth of the charge 1t is not suffi-
cieut to establish Il probability, though
a strong one, arising from the doctrine
of chances, that the fact is more likely
to be true than the contrary; but the
evidence must establish the truth of
the fact to q reasonable and moral
certainty-a certainty that convinces
and directs the understanding, and
satisfies the reason and Judgment of
those who are bound to act conscien-
ti0usly upon it, Or, as elsewhere
expressed, Il reasonable doubt exists
when the evidence is not sufficient to
satisfy the Judgment of the truth of u
proposition with such certainty that
prudent man would feel safe in act
ting upon it in his own important
affairs. 1t is not necessary that such
reasonable doubt should convince the
jury that the fact is not as charged.
A doubt never convinces.
We are of opinion that the jury
were rightly instructed by the Court
in this charge.
1.-THE rule requiring proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not require
proof as excludes every hypothesis
except the guilt of the prisoner; the
true rule is that the circumstances
taken together should be of a conclu-
sive nature and tendency, leading, on
the whole, to Il satisfactory cenclu-
sion, and producing, in effect, a rea
s0nable and moral certainty that the
accused, and no one else, committed |
the offense charged
Com. rs. Webster, ) Cush., 80.
In Com. rs. GoodlUin, Ii Gray, 81,
the Court said: 1.-THE instruction |
asked for was erroneous, because it |
required the Judge to decide that the |
prisoner could not be convicted upon |
circumstantial evidence, unless the |
were such as to exclude |
every hypothesis except that of his |
guilt. The true rule is, that the cir |
cumstances must be such as to pro- |
duce a moral certainty of guilt, and to |
exclude any other reasonable hypo- |
thesis.o We can see that unreasonable |
hypothesis could be invented by in |
geniOus counsel or sympathetic jurors !
which, if the law allowed them to be |
rested upon as defence, would make |
conviction for crime in a large num-
Der of cases impossible.
In People as. MURRAY, II Cal. 81, |
the Court says: "The appellants |
third point is not tenable The in
struction refused is as follows: In |
order TO justify the inference of legal |
guilt, the existence of the inculpatOry
facts must be absolutely incompat- |
IDLE with tine innocence of the accused |
and incapable Of explanation upon
any other reasonable hypothesis than
that Of his guilt To require the
facts to be absolutely Incompatible
with the innocence of the accused, is
to require proof of his guilt beyond
the possibility of a doubt. The law
requires that the facts shall not only
be consistent with the guilt Of the ac-
cused, but inconsistent with any other
rational conclusion. A higher degree
of certainty, in establishing the guilt
Of the accused, by means Of circum-
stantial evidence cannot be required,
without rendering such evidence val
ueless.u
See also People rs. Pndittia, 4 Cal.
In and (,cs,, es,yco/,TgL ,,1 (1,eyJo,, |