The advocate and Topeka tribune., 1893-11-15
Published November Is. 1898.
Supreme Court Sylabi
The State Of Kansas VS.. A. w. Patterson.
Appeal from Cowley County.
AFFIRMED.
YLLABUs.

/. The case of the State vs.. Cassidy, 12 Kas.
$50 followed:
3. The case of State vs.. Mosley, 81 Kas, S55
referred to and commented upon.
3. Under the statutes OF this state, one VINO
prOCures counsels or commands criminal OF
tense NAV be considered as principal, and may
be punished as the principal, ana u Is not nec'
essary to name such principal In the lnforma'
eion or indictment.
4. AS an accessory before the TACT may De
charged, tried and convicted In the same man
neP as II he were principal IL necessarily FOL
lows that he may be convicted of that degree
Of the crme which the evidence against him
establishes and the fact that the principal
through failure or proof or caprice OF the jury,
has been convicted Of lower grade, or even
acquitted, cannot affect the question OF his
guilt or innocence. State Vs. Bogue, MSS. 6l,
Kas. -.
5. The uncorroborated testimony Of an ac-
complice Is legally sufficient to sustain YER
dict and the degree Of credit which ought TO
be given to the testimony OF an accomplice ts
a matter exclusively within the province OF
the Jury but 1t Is the duty OF the trial Judge In
8 criminal cause, II requested so to do, to ad-
wise the jury not TO convict upon the tesCi'
mony of an accomplice alone, unless his testl-
mony is corrobOrated by other evidence as to
some material fact.
s. The trial Judge was requested by the de-
feDdant to instruct the jury. "lf any witness
had been impeached In the case, they would
not be justified In believing such witness II
not corfoborated by other evidence, circum-
stances and facts concerning the same mat
tel" !" also, "if any witness had heretofore mace
different statements under oath, they should
discard and Edisbeleve such witness entirely,
unless corroborated by other evidence, facts
and circumstances" The court refused so to
do, but did instruct the jury:
"You are the exclusive judges OF tne eVl:
dence, the facts proven and the credibillty OF
the witness, and IL is for you. and you alone to
say, from the evidence, whether the defendant
Is guilty or not And, II you believe any W.T.
ness has sworn falsely to any material fact In
this case, then you are at liberty to disregard
the whole OF his testimony" and, III you
should find, from all the evidence that any
witness, who has testified In this action has
heretofore been guilty OF perjury In testifylng
falsely concerning the same matters aDout
which he has testified in this case, then, ana
in that event, you ought to carefully and NIL
nutely consider all his evidence in this case.
and should carefully compare all his state
ments in this case together with all the otner
evidence In this case, and II, after having so
done, you are unable to say whether such wit
ness has or has not testified truthfully In this
case concerning the matters about which he
has testified, then, and In that event, you ought
to discard and disbelieve the evidence OF such
witness entirely But, If you are satisfied that
any such witness has testified truthtully as to
the matter In this case, then you should not
arbitrarily disregard his testimony, notWlth-
standing you may believe that he had hereto
fore made different statement, Hetd that
no error was committed in view Of the instruc'
tiOns given.
!. Where there is even slight evidence that
the Offense committed may have been OF
lower degree than the one charged, 1t is proper
for the trial court to give to the jury the law OF
such inferior offenses
s The evidence examined and held suffi-
Client to sustain conviction against the de-
fendant Of murder In the second degree.
All the justices concurring.
A true copy.
Attest: Y. j. BROWN,
TsEALl Clerk Supreme Court.