The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1894-06-08

WlUnlU Uue IIedIliuS Ol Utle law. IL
has often been said by courts OF high
repute that very little can be said by
way of defining reasonable doubt be-
| yond the natural import Of the phrase
| itself, but reasonable doubt is not
mere possible doubt. for no criminal
charge could be SO proved against an
accused person that a mere possible
| doubt might not arise as to the
| length of. the charge. Reasonable
doubt is that state of the case which,
after the impartial consideration and
comparison of all the evidence in the.
case, the minds of the jurors are left
| in that condition that they cannot
say that they have and feel an abid-
! ing conviction or moral certainty Of
the truth of the charge against the
accused. Absolute certainty is not
required, but where the evidence is SO
strong that it establishes the truth of
| the charge to moral certaintY-a
certainty-that cOnyinceS and directs
the understanding and satisfies the
| 1NdoOI anu VI uliS iOi o
who are bound to act conScientiously
| upon it, then the proof is beyond a
reasonable doubt. Again, reason
able doubt is such a doubt as would
cause reasonable, prudent and con-
siderate man in the grayest and most
| important affairs of life to hesitate
and pause before acting upon the
truth Of the matter charged or ac-
cuSed.
Murder in the first degree requires
a premeditated design to effect the
death of the person killed or another.
Where there is design to effect
death, but no generalization or delib-
GRAFTON, it is murder in the second
degree.
Whether or not a conspiracy exist
ed between Layne and Conway is a
question OF fact for the jury to deter
mine. Some evidence was admitted
relating to certain acts, conduct and
sayings of Layne prior to the time OF
the killing of Walraven, upon the
theory that some evidence had been
given in the case having some ten
dency to show that the killing was a
result Of the conspiracy between
Layne and Conway. Not unless such
conspiracy is proved beyond a reason
able doubt can the acts, dOingS and
sayings OF Layne in evidence and not
occurring in the presence OF Conway,
constitute any evidence OF his guilt
of any charge embraced within the
allegations OF the Indictment. If the
evidence justities it, the defendant
may be convicted under the indict-
ment, even though no conspiracy
ever existed between him and Layne,
the guilty act being found to be@en-
tirely his own. The state claims
that Conway committed the deed,
whether Layne was present or not,
and that if it was not result Of con-
spiracy it was committed by Conway
acting alone.
1t must be found that Conway, by
his own personal act, killed Walraven
guilty. Even though conspiracy up
to the time of the homicide was
found, to kill Walrayen or commit
some other unlawful act upon his per-
son, it would only be material to this
case SO far as acts done by the con-
SpiratorS in the course Of the con-
spiracy and in prosecuting the pur-
pose thereof would have some ten
dency to show that the defendant
committed the homicide, or the ma
ture Of the design with which it was
committed, if committed by him.
Fermentation involves a prior in
tention to do the act in question, and
presupposes an operation Of the mind
rejecting and celebrating upon the
act committed. No specific length Of
time is required for such deliberation,
but the act must have been done with
reflection and conceived beforehand.
Should itappear that the defendant
has committed a public offense, and
there is reasonable doubt of which of
two or more degrees he is guilty, he
can only properly be convicted of the
lowest of these degrees.
The remainder of the charge was as
follows, in full:
The state in this case claims that
the defendant Conway has confessed
that he committed the homicide in
question. A confession is an admIs-
sion made at any time by person
charged with crime, stating or sug-
costing the Inference that he COM
mitted the crime. The state claims
that this confession was made to the
witness Empey, one of the witnesses
for the state, short time after the
commission of the homicide in ques-
tion. This is all denied by the de-
PENDANT, and he testified that the
testimony of Empey in that regard is
wholly false The question of the
truth as falSity of the testimony of
Empey in regard to admissions of guilt
by the defendant, and to which Empey
has testified, is an important question