The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-01-04
ERRORS OF LAW.

In the Parker-McAfee case the Supreme
Court found that the lower court committed
three errors in it's rulings or instructions
to the jury. Although in a sense technical,
these errors are not beyond the understand
ing of nonprofessional readers, and in the
interests of justice they ought to be under
stood.
First, the Supreme Court holds that the
lower court erred in admitting the testi-
mony of Mrs. Eyster as TO what her hus-
band said a few minutes after the murder.
She testified that he said. Those colored
fellows that were in there when you were
there are the ones that shot me-" This tes-
timony was admitted as part OF the res
gestae. This is a Latin phrase meaning
the thing done. 1t is a rule of law that
every act or word which constitutes a part
of the thing done is admissible in evidence.
But to come within the definition of res
gestae the thing described must constitute
part of the transaction itself. 1t must be
directly connected with the very act. In
this case it was not. The fatal shot had
been fired and the perpetrators of the crime
had disappeared from the premises. The
transaction was finished. 1t does not mat
ter how little or how much time had elapsed
between the shooting and the murdered
mans alleged declaration; the disconnection
between the two was complete. If the wife
had heard her husband exclaim while the
murder was going on, Those colored fell
lows you saw in the store are killing me-
| that would have been part of the res gestae
and clearly admissible. The testimony as
offered purported to relate what the hus-
band said about the transaction after it
was all over. 1t was his account of the
res gestae, not part of the res gestae itself.
This is what the law calls hearsay evidence.
which is never admissible. 1t Is sometimes
difficult TO decide what constitutes part of
the res gestae. but a Judge is expected to
be able to draw the line. and If he cannot
he is not fit to be a Judge.
Another error of the lower court was
the instruction to the jury that the fail
ure of the defendants to account for their
whereabouts during all the time within
which the alleged crime might have been
committed was a fact which might be
properly considered by the jury in connec-
ton with any other evidence in the case
tending to prove guilt. This was equiva-
lent to saying that the defendants must
prove their innocence beyond the POSSIBLE
ity of a reasonable doubt. That is not
the theory Of the law. In all criminal
cases it is for the State to prove the guilt
of the accused, not for the latter to prove
his innocence. 1t does not require a lawyer
to understand this distinction. and TO see
that the court below erred in it's charge.
The Supreme Court also finds that the
lower court committed error in refusing
to instruct the jury on the subject of rea-
sonable doubt. The law requires the guilt
satisfaction of every juror beyond a rea-
sonable doubt. and that being the law it
is the duty OF courts TO so instruct. Juries
are made judges Of the law as we'll as
the facts, but they must be told what the
law is and what condition OF mind is
necessary to justify them in reaching a
verdict of guilty.
These rules OF law are not SO technical
as they may seem at first sight. They are
founded in reason. justice and long expert
ence. and are as necessary for the protec-
ton of the innocent as they are for the pun