The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-01-16
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY.
Attorneys ON Both Sides Well Salts
fled with Them.


INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY.
Attorneys on Both Sides Well Satis-
fled with Them.
The instructions to- the jury prepared and
read by Judge McCray were exhaustive,
but thoroughly covered every point brought
out in the case. The Court first, quoted the
Indictment and then referred to the plea of
not guilty entered by the prisoner. Then he
defined the crime of murder in the first de-
gree in which the killing must be done
purposely and swith premeditated malice,
and if either element be absent from the tes-
timony there could be no conviction of this
grade of homicide. Murder in the second
degree must embrace purpose and malice
without generalization, the difference in the
punishment of the two degrees being that
inythe first the death punishment could be
inflicted, and in the second Imprisonment
for life. Referring to the crime of man.
slaughter, the Court said:
you will observe that the difference be-
tween murder in the second degree and
m~anslaughter is that murder in the second
degree the killing must have been done
pnspG the crime anne m Of mansIangh Mere the he Killing Killing
must have been done without malice ex-
press or implied. either voluntarily, upon. a
sudden heat, or invOluntarily, but in the
commission Of some unlawful act; and the
difference in the penalty is that in murder
i'll Tie S6GOIu Q6&IGG II IuuSt OG llIlQIlSUI-
ment for life, while in manslaughter it
must be Imprisonment in the State prison
not more than twenty-one years, nor less
than two years.
1.-THE law takes notice of the infirmity of
human nature and discriminates between
nberately or maliciously kills another and
where one kills upon a sudden provocation,
In the hah hea aim OF pa pas sao1 Or 9r p ondar the bew elood
to reduce a criminal homicide to the grade
of mere manslaughter there must be what,
10 - 4xva - h ov- Is n c1rf inyf Axyo
cation to engender passion. Abusive cpl
thets never constitute a sufficient provoca-
ton to reduce criminal homicide to but
manslaughter.
DOCTRINE OF SELF-DEFENSE.
1.-THE defendant insists that the killing
of Western B.. Thomas was done in self-de-
Tense and this requires the Court to instruct
you as to the doctrine of self-defense. One
man may kill another under such circum-
stances as that the homicide constitutes
no crime, but is justified by the law. The
doctrine of self-defense as applied by the
evidence in this case may be thus defined:
Where a person being without fault and is
in a place where he has a right to be, so
far as his assailant is concerned. is violent
ly assaulted, he may, without retreating,
repel force by force, and ne need not be-
lieve that his safety requires him to kill
his adversary in order to give him the right
When from the acts of his .assailant he be-
lieves and has reasonable ground to believe
that he is in danger of losing his life. or
receiving great bodily harm from his adver-
sary, the right to defend himself from such
danger or apprehended danger may be ex-
extent which is reasonably necessary, and
If his assailant is killed as a result from
the reasonable defense Of himself he is es,
such danger the necessity, or apparent ne
cessity. as well as the amount of force ne
only be determined from the standpoint of
the defendant at the time, and under all
existing circumstances. Ordinarily. one ex-
ercing the right of self-defense is required
to act upon the instant and without time
to deliberate and Investigate, and under
such circumstances the LANCER which ex-
minent as If it were actual"
The Court explained that the defendant
had pleaded not guilty to the Indictment.
so the burden would rest upon the State
of proving beyond a reasonable doubt ev-
cry requirement to constitute some one
of the crimes covered by the indictment.
If it was found that the deceased simply
laid his land upon the accused and asked
him to take a drink, and that the accused
was not in danger. the killing would not be
justifiable. In considering whether or not
the defendant acted in self-defense the jury
must consider all of the circumstances and
the conditions of the parties at the time
and Immediately previous thereto.
Mere words, however provoking they
may be-" continued the Court, will not so
far Justify a blow, delivered with a deadly
weapon as to reduce the killing below the
grade of murder.
.If a person seeks a quarrel with an
other, or unintentionally provokes a combat
for the purpose of finding an opportunity
or excuse for taking his life. or do him
great bodily harm, he cannot avail him,
in the progress of an encounter so pro-
voked he finds it necessary, or apparently
necessary, to take the life of the person
| with whom he has provoked the quarrel,
/ unless he shall have first retreated and
abandoned the combat in good faith. and
been aftsrward assaulted by his antagonist,
and this for the reason that whatever ne
cessity for taking the others life may have
arisen has been brought about by his own
IF, under the evidence of this case and
the instructions given. you shall find tina
tuted some one of the crimes charged
then in determining whether it was man
| homicide. YOU may take into consideration
the condition of the defendant as to So
briefly or intoxication at the time of the
killing. For, while it is true that voluntary
intoxication cannot be taken as an excuse
for or palliation of any crime actually
committed. yet it may be properly taker
of the crime. You may, therefore,, properly
consider the testimony showing, or tending
ant was under the influence of liquor t.
such an extent as rendered him to q
greater or less degree incapable of medita
ton and deliberate determination; as we'll
also. as to whether or not such condition
if from the evidence you find it to exist
did not render him more liable to sudder
heat of passion or less liable to accurately
understand and properly apprehend the tru,
situation of affairs, so that the killing
might properly be attributed to sudden hea
of passion rather than to purpose deliber
ateiy formed or malice entertained.
CONDUCT OF WITNESSES.
ssThe court deems it proper to say to YOU
that you may, in considering the testimon,
in this case, properly take into considera
ton in this case the conduct and bearin;
of the witnesses upon the stand: their man
ner of testifying, whether free from al
appearance of bias or prejudice the on
way or the other. the power of accurat,
observation by the witnesses at the tim,
Of the occurrences as to which they test