The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1893-01-10

q hand, If you ma that Wesley Warner wa
!, mentally capable OF conceiving design I
Z take the life Of the woman who had been Twin
. as his mistress, and that he did conceive sue
? q design, and If you are satisfied that In pul
i suance OF design thus conceived he purpose
ly inflicted the fatal blow. then he was guilt.
z OF murder of the flrst degree Whereas, II yoi
: fnd that he was incapable from the condition
OF his mind of conceIving such purpose. o.
4 that In point of fact he had not fully con
cefved such purpose, ana acted In striking
the fatal blow not from design but from sud
den or motiveless passion, or from uncontrolI
able because drunken violence, then he Is moi
guilty OF murder OF the first degree but guilty
OF murder of the second degree.
[ Now, the circumstance which has been
introduced, which necessarily is fntrod uced in
this case both by the state and by the defend
ant, is the drinking or drunkenness, accord
ing as you view the testimony OF the defend
ant, previous TO and at the time Of his homi-
eide. The fact that man is drunk and the
question as to the extent of that drunkenness
this one question of the mental condition OF
the defendant Drunkenness does not CON
stitute bar to guilt. A man may be held
guilty OF murder and murder in the first
Il may be that ne at various
times covered by the testimony in the
case, or even at the time of the elimination of
a preconceiyed design. might be in condi-
ton Of drunkenness. 1t is no such bar as that.
1t is just simply a fact to be given just the
4 weight that it deserves in the orderly opinion
of the jury. We all know from common expe-
rience that there is such thing as a condition
of drunkenness in which an intelligent pur-
pose cannot be formed, or If formed cannot be
executed. We all know, on the other hand,
that there are conditions resulting from drink
| which will not prevent either good or wick
ed purpose, or II that purpose has been or is
formed, will not prevent the furtherance and
the completion or execution OF 1t. IL Is for
you to determine in this case. as men Of com
mon sense, men acquainted with the meaning
OF the testimony you have heard whether
there existed In this case condition OF mind,
of mental disturbance or whatever other name
in may be called by, in this defendant, such
| that he either was unable to form or In point
of fact did not form the design TO commit
murder which is an essential part of murder
OF the first degree.
The rule of law as understand it and charge
| 1t to you, in respect to The effect of drunken
ness on trial of this character. is this, that
this defendant is on trial tor crime OF which
generalization OF the kind that have des-
cribed to you is an essential element The
fact that The accused was drunk or was in
drink therefore may and should be taken into
consideration by the jury tor The purpose OF
meditation. man may be SO drunk as to be
incapable of forming the deliberate intent TO
MURDER which is necessary to the crime Of
1 murder OF the first degree. On the other hand
a man may be drunk and yet may have
formed with deliberation and have executed
a premeditated murder OF the first degree.
| Where drunkenness exists the jury must con
slider 1t in connection with all the other testi-
mony. to see whether the purpose to kill was
or was not conceived and executed with the
wilfulness and design contemplated by the
statute, or whether II the design was formed
1t was formed in passion merely and inebrtety
without the conception Of murder or purpose
to kill or to take hu nan life.
With the facts and testimony necessary to
be used by you in determining this question
have nothing whatsoever to say. Whatever
testimony has been admitted has been ad-
mitted because in the opinion OF the Court 1t
was lawful and had bearing upon this case.
The weight you shall give to the witnesses
must be determined by the ordinary rules BY
which YOU Judge human accuracy ana credi-
biuty. You are TO consider, as In any other
case, If there is a divergence OF statement,
| who is most likely to be telling the truth. No
| certain rules can be laid down in respect to
that. This question of drunkenness, which Is
the main stress of the defense, Is one which is
| to be taken into fair consideration by you in
| determining any question where It's presence
| is found, according to the degree that you
| find it, and If certain statement which might
you find to have been the result or drink you
| are TO consider how far you shall give weight
| to the language thus used. Obviously the
same weight will not be given TO language
| which we believe to be merely drunken NUT
! tering that we would give to the language OF a
perverse and wicked heart, even though the
perversfty accompanied by excessive IL
quor. In other words, the fact that a man has
been drinking does not of itself make what he
says either more or less strong, except so far
/ as you shall find either that it was or was not
| a real expression OF sentiment. If a drunken
| man expresses sentiment, be it good or bad
| it may be either true or false. The TACT that
he is drunk does not make it necessarily
false.
In the same line, the question whether this de-
| PENDANT was actually lying in wait at the spot
where the tragedy occurred, Is one which will de-
pend largely upon your conclusion as to his con-
| dition with respect to ebriety or inebriety OBJ
| viously the statute by Lying in wait" coupled
with the other illustration Of giving poison, meant
to indicate condition in which one with criminal
and murderous intent waits for his victim waits
his opportunity. Now, undoubtedly man may be
| drunk and may lie in wait He may be drank
and yet may wait opportunity to carry out de-
sign which he had either formed before he became
so drunk or which he not SO drunk but that be
/ could form. But he also might be SO drunk that
he might lie on the ground, stupid not knowing
why he was there. The mere fact Of his lying on
the ground would net be "lying in wait" unless his
presence there in that position was from desire
to seek opportunity TO put in operation law
less and wicked purpose.
case of this character you are to bear in mind the
attitude which society represented by its courts
holds toward every person who is accused of crime
That is there no presumptions against them
The law does not accuse any man and then say
I"We will not presume You to be guilty" on the
contrary, man is never held to be in any more
guilty than the facts actually prove him to be In the
opinion OF the Jury, and If there be in regard tt
any fact any condition of doubt in the mind OF 3
Juror of that character which has been described
as a reasonable doubt, ii he cannot accept the
fact without feeling that he yet has doubt which
an important conclusion, that doubt should be re-
solved always In favor of the defendant. Inc
idea Of what constitutes reasonable doubt Is one
that we all act upon thousand times day. We
all have doubts which are vague and possible. mere
doubts that we give very little weight 70. Yet n
regard to almost every transaction we have doubts
OF what we call q reasonable character, so we viii
not act while that doubt is in our minds. rea-
sonable doubt in the legal sense s this, as un-
doubt when there is that condition OF MIND IL
which after consideration and comparison OF al
1.-THE evidence the juror feels abiding conviction
to moral certainty Of the correctness OF the con-
cluslon he has reached. That is the idea Of rea.
sonable doubt. When juror has reached con-
clusion in his mind. in an honest endeavor undel
his obligation to do his duty, and then looks back
and discovers no doubt In his own mind but thai
he has to moral certainty beyond any doubt thai
he ought to allow to interfere with the due per
formance of his duty, reached conclusion OF SUD
stantial correctness of which he feels no abiding
idfstrust, then he is convinced beyond reasonable
doubt That Is the rule of law in respect to ths
attitude Of mind N which the jury 10 10 consider
all the evidence and in regard 70 the presumptioI
Of innocence Wnich wall exlsU uhth eho uoAonu1H'
The defendants request to charge win dispose
of nv charging as follows:
aThat to convict the defendant of murder o.
the irst degree it must be proved to the satisfac
ton of the jury beyond a reasonable aoupt ina
there was in the mind of the defendant, at TIN
time of striking the fatal blow, specific intention
to take the life Of the deceased and that he mus
have premeditated the act with that intention
Also THAT If the defendants intent was merel,
to scare or do great bodily harm, In striking tn,
blow he did, and death ensued therefrom then b
would be guilty Of murder in the second degree
only" :. 81. lin.
in snch a state of intoxcation that his mind wa
incapable of premeditatipg the fatal blow VIII
The intent to take life and his reason was deprived
Of the power to think and weigh the nature Of n.
i Act Committed and the consequence of his act
then the offence committed cannot be more thai
murder in the second degree.
decline to charge that he must nave weighed
the consequences Of his act If he intended IL
kIl whether he fully took into consideration all O
the possible consequences do not think Is ma
! have charged upon the fourth request, which
will read .1hat though the jury should ind that
~ The time the fatal blow was struck the defend
ant was not SO drunk to be incapable Of forming
the premeditated and deliberate intent 70 XIII, yet
il the jury In considering the effects Of MS intox
cation with all the other facts in the case should
ind that the purpose to kill the deceased, Il any
was formed ia passion or jealous rage producet
upon his mind excited by liquor, upon student.
binding the deceased in company with another man
on the road, then 1t would reduce the onence z
murder in the second degree and the jury shouis
/, return the verdict accordingly
II have already charged the jury that they mus
fnd that an intent, not merely in stare OF pas
SION but characterized by ne staIn5ory
murder in the frat degree. and refuse 70 charg'
otherwise - -, - =
the defendant was at the time so excited by liquo
that upon discovering the deceased, with whom ~
; had been living a. his wife, In company WIN
rage and struck the fatal blow while under It's In
} fluence then his offence In killing the deceased
| cannot be higher than murder IN the second dc
III have already covered that in the remarks
have previously made and refuse to charge other
wise .u.4 .e 4,
| whole evidence they have reasonable doubt
whether at the time Of the killing, defendant has
as the result of int0xcation or Its after eftects
snfieient mental capacity to deliberately thinl
mon and nationally determine to kill the de- ceased
they cannot find him guilty Of murder IN the mrs
Ibave charged that the prisoner must have beef
able TO form and must have formed design y
take life which was not the result Of mere suu0ei
! passion OF Of intoxicaton, and refuse to charg
charge as requested 'sThat homicide cause'
person lying wf nOs and sncS "
ing in wait avais nothing II the person be 80 IN