Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1892-04-02

lei. yesterday Afternoon, subsequent
. /, the report In the Ntwl.
rnr ptLI.oN AIrEAL.
Malachi Dillon, the ogden man,who
w.s recently sentenced by Judge
Ntlper to nine years imprisonment for
,nlipp a man at ogden 1.-THE jury hav-
inc brought ina verdict of voluntary
mapslaighter), must undergo the
pnn,,hmenl Imposed upon him. so
,,y, the supreme Court Of the Territory
an deciding his appeal from the sen.
tencc.
II win DO remembered that Judge
Miner ovclrllud motion for "a new
tfla,. 10 the order overmiiug the mo-
ton Tor new trial the appellant eX-
crp,ed aud assigned the same ~ error.
The opinion goes ON to say thnt tho
commission Of the homicide was proven
by witnesses Tor the prosecution with
cut any evidence to reduce the killing
TO mauslaughtcr or to justify or excuse
1t. The defendant relied upon insanity
fora defense hud offered evidence to
prove IL, aud the prosecution offered
evidence upon the issue TO dlsprovc II
and tending To show sanity. BViore ta1
fury was charged, counsel for tue fcs'
Icciiye'partios said to tho court that
they regarded it ~ proper 10 charge
tue Jury upon tho law Of maDslsughler
~ well rs upOn the law Of murder, but
ia, same counsel now inelst that u tho
defense NJ insanity WIS not proven, the
evidence showed the defendant guilty
of uluricr. and there was no evidence
10 support conviction Of mau-laugh
Ter, 'fhp lurlf4 .ht have believed
that conduct Of tue dclondant, relied
uuln Hg indicating insanity, YaH
felcrmLlc 20 intoXicauOu (uvidcncc
OF which was offered on The
trail, that his mind was 60 Affect
ed with liquor ~ TO raise n reasonable
doubt OF the premcditatiou essential 10
murder. IL the killing was Intentional
anu unlawful and wholly from passion,
innamcd by iutOxicatiop, anu from an
imaginary Insult nud without the dU'
gree Of thought essential % malice, no
was guilty OF voluntary manslaughter.
The court was not prepared 10 hold
that there was no evidence OF such
state OF mind at the time ot the fatal
injury. Further, the jury having
found the issuc u insanity against the
appellant, his counsel cannot De heard
10 complain because he was not found
guilty OF murder Instead Of mnu'
slaughter. 10 Appeared from the re-
cord that the evidences Introduced by
She prosecution csthbiiahcd thu hOmi'
eide without any proof OF. nanliy or
OF Modification or uNCuse; thai the de-
fondant relied upOn insanity az u de-
tense, and offered evidence ON that IL.
fue to provo IL; that the plaintiff
offered evidence 10 disptove II; that
considerable OF the evidence was INTRO.
duced ON either side OF the Issue anu
that the court charged the jury that
the defendant relied upon inrau.
ity ne an affirmative defense; that the
burden was upon him 20 prove 10 by
pfeponderanCe oil tho evidence.
ani that 10 lhe announcement o. this
lesnl proposition the deiendnnps coun-
tsl excepted. The law NJ this Terri.
tory, SAYS the opinion, IL "upOn n trial
fof murder; tho commission VI the
homicide 10y the defendant being
proved, tho burden OF proving clrcum'
stances Of mitigation, or that justify or
excuse II, devulVes upon him, unless
the proof on the part Of the pTosecu.
ton tends TO show that the crime com
mltlcd Ouiy amounts TO manslaughttr,
pt that the defendant was Justiilablc or
UNcusnblc.N
The authority Of the legislature b
enact such law WAS un1Oubted, the
intent inRnilesl, there was no room
Tot construction and the court must
respect tue law. The obvious iuten-
ton OF the legislature was that proof Of
the killing, without oviuence IA NIT.
CATION, or that tended to justly or oN.
Cusn 10, imposed upon the CDieL liant
the burden Of furnishing such proof.
Otherwise stated, when the prns'cu.
ton proved the homicide, without
more, tho defendant must prove the
fact that no sets up as an Affirmative
defense, and such fact was not proved
when the evidence offered on one side
u the issue In ito support, when
weighed against tue evidence on the
other s!de VI the Issue, aud against
g. only raised "a Iaa-onablo DOUBT
Ol tho fact In issue, or when
the evidence offered for aud against II
only balanced. This statute included
all affirmative deicuse,, and therefore
embraced the defense OF insanity.
Without a statute on the subject the
law would presume sanity, and the
burden would be- On the defendant TO
prove II. Authorities were conflicting
as TO proof Of insanity In criminal
east, aud the ridweli case, utah,was
cited, followed by an uxtInct from an
0plniouby Chief Justico shaw bear
ing upon the subject. A great number
Of authorities are referred to In the
opinion, AMI there are quotations from
come Of them. Continuing, Judge
Zane says that IL II easy 90 ascertain
exactly the relative weight Of material
things. II the FeIght NJ one end o.
the beam Is heavier Than the weight AZ
the other, the indication Ia apparent
ant unmistskable. But Il Is not ~
etsy TO compare the weight Ofeviience
on opposite sides otau Issue, but never
thel,ss the law makes ID thu duty o.
ouufts anu juror IN tho invest,ga
OF truth 10 ascertain tho relative
weight Of proof on opposite sides OF an
issue with such certainly as tliu cnpn'
cities Of thu minds Of mon enable them
TO. II the prosecution Offered ~ much
evidence Of sanity AS the defendant iiu
Of insanity, The proof on the one side bal
Rnced the proof ON the other, and th,
presumption OF sanity beyond a reason
able doubt had no evidence 10 weigh
against II. The court, on the trial o
the cause, charged the jury; "Hha
the burden Of proving Insanity was on
ths deiendant, and that he was re-
quired 10 prove II TO the satisfaction 0
tue jury by a prrponicranue Of th'