Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-06-11
POII7S FOR LAWYERS.
STAGE RoBBER sANsoME Is GRANTED
A NEW TRIAL.
ERRORS Made by the Trial Court Pointed
Out and Criticised by Supreme
Court Justices.

The Supreme Court yesterday filed an
opinion in Deputy Supreme Court Clerk
Williams Office, in this city. in the case of
the People vs.. John Sansome. The de-
PENDANT was convicted of the crime of rob-
berry in Placer county and sentenced to
imprisonment in the State Prison for life
He appealed from the judgment and the
order deny ing him new trial. After pass
ing on errors in ruling claimed by defend
ants attorney, the Court says:
It is urged for appellant that several other
prejudicial errors were committed, but one of
them only we think need be noticed. The rob-
mitted on August IL, 1857, near Michigan Bluff,
in Placer county, and consisted in stopping q
stage-driver and taking from Wells. Fargo &
Co.'s express-box, which he was carrying, S2S5
in gold coin. The defendant was arrested for
the offense on September 2lst following at Elk
Grove, in Sacramento county, and was taken
thence to Sacramento city. The officer who
by counsel for the prosecution if he searched
defendant in the City Prison. He answered
that defendant was searched in his presence,
and that certain articles were found upon him
there. Counsel then exhibited to the witness
and jury number of articles taken from the
person of defendant, and proceeded to examine
8 lid witness as to the character of said articles
and the uses to which they were supposed to be
adapted. To this examination counsel for de-
PENDANT objected, on the ground that the arti.
Giles had no bearing on The case and had moth
ing to do with the commission of the crime
and the defendant duly excepted. The witness
then proceeded to testify as follows: sThere
are some of these things I recognize This bit
remember There are two bits and knife
l distinctly remember, and the putty knife
Those drills in the right mans or mems hands
are called safe drills and used as such, and
then they would drill most anything else. And
2 milestone ana watch spring: The milestone,
knife or tool. This, presume could be used
for unlocking some lock--a skeleton kew for a
paddock. This would possibly be used in blow
ing up safe, and this is used for picking open
window sash. This would open handcnff II
in the right shape, etc.
Counsel for defendant moved to strike ont all
this kind of testimony. but the Court denied
the motion.
The defendant here appears to have been con.
ylcted upon evidence wholly circumstantial as
shown, among other things by the testimony of
Wit that one Steve Robinson was the man VINO
stopped and robbed the stage
Now. how the articles found on defendant in
Sacramento forty.one days after the robbery was
committed can be said to constitute link in
the chain of circumstances which tend to con-
meet the defendant with the commission of the
robbery, is more than we can understand 1t
does not appear that the robbery was committed
by the aid of articles like those shown in evil
dence, nor that the defendant was in the yicin-
ity at or about the time the ofiense was COM
mitted. The only evidence, SO far as the record
shows, as to where the defendant was at any
time plior to his arrest, was ON the part of the
prosecution, that he was at or near Forest Hill
August 18th. and on the part of The defense,
that he was in Grass Valley between and 4
O'Clock in the afternoon of the IIth-distaut
more than 80 miles from the place of the rob-
berry.
We think the Court erred in admitting the ey
fAd IN and ~ .f.xat.
after it was admitted. We therefore advise that
the judgment and order be reversed and the
cause be remsnded for new tr al.
The opinion is written by Commissioner
Belcher, and Judge Mcfarland in concur
ring in the Judgment of Mr.. Belcher, SAYS
] wish to add that some of the instructions
given at the request of the prosecution and not
instance, the jury are told that when direct
evidence cannot be produced minds " i'll form
their judgment on circumstances, and act on
the probabilities of the case" This would
probably be understood by the jury as instruc-
ting them that their minds must ''act on prob
abilities" in determining the guilt of the de-
fendant, which would clearly be erroneous
Bnt the instruction proceeds ss follows: "As
absolute certainty is seldom to be obtained in
human affairs, reason requires that the Jury in
forming an opinion of the truth OF
facts should be governed by the su.
perior number of probabilities on the side
OF the people or the defendant. This is
not only against the settled rule as to the
amount of proof necessary to convict in crimi
nal cases, but is against the express language
OF the code. The instruction was also given
that lin order to convict the circumstantiaI
evidence should be such as to produce nearly
the same degree of certainty as that which
arises from direct testimony" This, in my
opinion, y doubtful and dangerous PROPOSE
ton. do not mean to say that It would be
sufficient to reverse a judgment, for am aware
that somewhat similar language was held not
eTT0na0ug PQ0nlQ md OF
least two subsequent cases. But the doctrine
has never been satisfactory to the profession,
and can be upheld only by the most stringent
use of the rule OF stare decisis. In my Judgment
1t had better be aba doned by prosecuting Off
GERS, for its use in future may put just convic-
tions in peril.