Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-02-04

verdict and judgment OF conviction.
Among them are the following.
?. The court erred In allowing
Henry Gardner, against the objection
81 counsel for Defendant, TO testify that
Henry Jones had been castfated aud
had no testiclos.
Z. The court erred in refusing each
one Of the several requests asked Tor
the defendant, TO wit, severally, each
one Of the twenty-one requests ap-
pearlng In the record.
y. The court erred In charging the
Jury as 10 the effect Of good character.
o. The court erred In charging the
Jury upon the facts rs TO the belief to
be attached 10 witnesses who testified
TO the exact language thirty.two years
after the transaction.
10. The court erred In charging the
Jury that time does not run in favor OF
murder, and In charging that no
lapse OF time washes out the stains
Of blood that the murderer makes
aud IN charging generally upon the
facts OF the case.
The Court erred In charging the
Jury rs TO the subject Of Justification,
tho defendant not having made OF
asked for Justification, but denying the
killing; and the charge Of the subject
OF killing was an argument that the
defendant was guilty.
We do not consider II necessary 10
review each assignment separately.
In the course OF the trial II appears
by the testimony Of Henry Gardner,
under objection from the defendants
counsel, that Henry Jones had been
castrnted some considerable time before
the alleged homicide. II nowhere ap-
pears that thedeiendant had any hand
or completely In this Transaction, OF
was Ia any manner chargeable there.
with, or that that fact In any way
tends 10 clucidate the question involv.
ell, or throws any light upon the ques.
toni OF the guilt or Innocence OF the
defendant. The presumption Is that
this testimony was admitted tor the
purpose Of showing malice on the part
Of the defendant, and that was proba.
bly, the ground upon which the learned
Judge admitted the testimony. II this
DO NJ, the prosecution failed In any
way TO connect the defendant with the
act OF castrstIon. This, We think,
was error. The only object for la nd.
mission, II II was admissible at all,
would be TO show that tho defendant
committed the act, or assisted In its
commission, and that he must have
had malice against the deceased ut that
time; aud when the prosecution failed
TO connect the defendant with the act,
the testimony becomes wholly incom-
pctent. Its admission, under the cir
cuni-tances, would naturally tend 10
awaken a prejudice In the minds Of the
jury against the defendant. Testimony
Of this transaction was foreign TO the
Issue and should not have been allow.
ed.
Error IL assigned upon the refusal 81
the Court TO Instruct the Jury M fol-
lows:
10. SIN criminal trial, evidence Of tho
good character Of person II Of value not
only IN doubtful cases, hut also when the
testimony tends very strongly TO csiab-
lish tho guilt OF tho accused. u viii Of
itself sometimes create n doubt, whom
without II none would oNi-t."
IL. There IL no case IN which tho Jury
may not, In the exercise Of u sound ludg-
nicnt, give person the honoht ola pre-
vious good character. No matter how
conclusive tho other testimony may
appear Ia 10, the character
OF tho accused may DO such ~
To cr-ate n doubt IN the minds OF the
jury, and lead them TO believe, IN Wow Of
tho probabilities, that u person OF high
character would not he guilty ~ the Of
icnso charged, that the other evidence In
tho case Ii false, or the witness mis-
takcn.'
The Court refused these requests,
but instructed tho Jury as follows:
"Proof OF tho good character OF tho
person charged with the oi1onso Il al
ways allowed In this class OF cases, and
the weight To be given 10 II IN To be- do
,crminod by tho jury. II IL all-import-
ant In doubtful cases. Where the evl.
dcnce, outside OF tho presum ption Of
good character, II clear and explicit. ON
which no doubt can be east, good
character will only cause tho Jury IN
hesitate and think about tho matter. The
Jury Will always romem Dor that man
has TO commit his nr-t crime. Ito can.
not commit all tho crimes, IL he docs
commit any, at once; he has 10 break
over the rules OF good conduct aud good
life for the iirst time, sometime la his
life.n
We think the requests numbered 10
and ~ should have been either given
10 the jury or embraced In the charge
VI the court; and that the instruction
given 10 the jury on the courts ow n
motion.was erroneous. This charge, as
given, limited the effect Of COED
character 10 doubtful cases, and that In
cases where the evidence was clear
such evidence would only have the
effect to cause the jury 10 hesitate and
think about tho matter. In other
words, that In clear cases Of guilt good
character should have no weight, ex-
cepl, for the jury TO stop and think, but
In doubtful cases II was all important.
We think the charge was misleading.
In doubtful eases the Jury should give
the defendant the benefit Of tho
doubt and scquit; and TO do
10 II would not he necessary for
the defendant 10 add proof II good
character 10 the doubt already existing
In order 10 be entitled TO an acqultlal.
It's In clear cases therefore where
evidence OF good character IN OF the
most avail. There may be cases made
out so clear that no good character can
make them doubtful; but there may be
Others IN which evidence given
against 4 person without character
would amount ~ q conviction, In
which q high character would pro-
duce a reasonable doubt, or In which
high character will actually outweigh
evidence which otherwise might ap-
pear conclusive. "Good character IL
an important factor with every man;
anu never more 40 than when he IN put
on trial charged with an oiiense which
isrcndered improbable In the last de.
gree by uniform course Of life wholly
Inconsistent with any such crime.
There are cases where II becomes a
man'e sole dependence, and yet
may prove sufficient 10 outweigh ovi.
denCe Of the most positiye chafnctsr.