The record-union., 1894-03-06
TIE SIRTBE BROTHERS VICTORIOUS.
They Are Granted a New Trial by the
Supreme Court.
Judgment Reversed on the Ground
That the Trial Court Erred in
Its Instructions.

The county must now go to the eX-
pens6 Of again trying the Strybe brothers,
Richard and Manuel, who were last year
convicted of murder in the second de-
gree and sentenced to the State Prison
for thirty years.
The crime for which they were con-
victed was the murder of an old man
named y. G. Damon in 1883, who was
drugged and robbed in a disreputable
den on Second street, near M. known in
those days as the mobile House," , He
was then dragged out into the alley,
where he was found in dying condition.
On the trial Of the Strybes all the par
ticulars of the case were published in the
RECORD UNION and are familiar to the
public. The chief witness against the
prisoners was Dick Reed, who, with the
Stry bes, was a habitue OF tho place at the
time the crime was committed, and con-
cerning his testimony counsel for the de-
tense asked the court to give certain in
structiOns 10 the jury, which was re-
fused. On this refusal is based the re-
versal OF the judgment. Says the Su-
preme Court:
Applicants contended that, looking at
all TIE evidence, a verdict Of guilty was
clearly not warranted, and also that num-
erous errors of law We're committed by
the court in this ruling upon the admls-
sion OF evidence, which call for re-
versal.
The court of its motion instructed the
jury at great length, and among
other things told them that it was
for them to determine wheth er or not
fHh
that to be an accomplice it was not
necessary 10 actually participate in the
crime and that a conviction could not be
had on the testimony OF an accomplice,
unless he was cOrrOborated by other evil
dence, etc. The defendants asked and the
court refused to give the following in
structiOnS;
81 instruct you that the testimony of an
accOmplice ought to be viewed with dis
trust, and the evidence of the oral admis-
siOns of the defendants in this case ought
to be viewed with caution.
Il instruct you that ii you find the wit
ness, Richard Reed, 10 be an accomplice,
and you do not believe the evidence of the
witness, Mrs. Richard Reed, then there
is no corrOborating evidence OF the ac
conplice in this case, and it is your duty
to acquit the defendants"
The Supreme Court thinks that, in
HI6H Vi IAO 6N1I6ut -LHeSS InStI
should have been given. The first is
substantially in the language of Section
206l, Subdivision of the Code of Civil
Procedure, which directs that the fury
are 10 be 80 instructed by the court on
all proper occasions; and in People VS..
Bonney (9S Cal, 276) the refusal to give
such instruction was held to be error.
1t was objected by the people that this
was not proper occasion for giving the
instruction, because it was not proved
that Reed was an accomplice. But the
court expressly submitted to the jury the
question of whether Reed was an accom-
plice or not, and the evidence was fully
sufficient to authorize such submission
The decision quotes Cross VS.. The Peo-
pie az HIS, l5Z) that ''an accomplice is
defined to be one who is in
some way concerned in the commits
sion of a crime. though not as a princi-
pal, ana this includes all persons who
have been concerned in its commits
sion, whether they are considered. in
strict legal propriety, as principals IN the
first or second degree, or merely as access
sories before or after the fact"
The court further says that the second
instruction referred to stated the law cor
rectly, and it was proper, under the cir
cumstances shown, that such an instruc-
tion should be asked and given. 1t there
fore reverses the judgment and order and
remands the case for new trial.