The San Francisco call., 1895-11-02


cence with which the law clothes the accused,
and to fix upon him the perpetration of the
crime the latter is permitted to support the
! original presumption OF innocence by proof of
! the fact that his personal character in the
traits involved in the charge has previously
! been good, and evidence thereof is relevant to
! the question OF guilty not guilty There
lore, you are instructed that the good charac-
/ ter OF the accused, ii proved, IS circumstance
you must consider and regard His good char
acter, when proved is itself fact in the case.
| IL is circumstance tending in a greater or less
! degree TO establish his innocence, and it is not
to be put aside by yon in order to ascertain
Whether the other facts and circumstances
considered by themselves do not establish his
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Good char
acter, when proved, is to be kept in view by
! you IN all your deliberations, and by you con-
! sldered in connection with all the other facts
! IN The case, and if, after consideration of all
the evidence, including that bearing on the
! good character OF the accused, you have O. rea-
| him.
1t is proper and legitimate on the part of the
| defense to lay before you evidence OF the good
character OF the accused, to induce you to be-
heve from the improbability that person of
good character should have committed such a
! crime as that with which the accused stands
| charged, and that there is some mistake or
misapprehension in the evidence on the part
OF the prosecution, and in this connection you
must consider 1t. There may be cases where
good character in and of itself would create a
reasonable doubt, when no doubt would exist
but Tor such good character, and there may be
cases so clearly proven that no amount of
good character would or should create such
reasonable doubt.
AA sane criminals
dctuated By nlottue.
| 1t is undoubtedly a truism that all sane per-
sons committing crime are actuated by some
| motive. Therefore, the presence or absence of
any motive to commit the act of homicide, if
| homicide was committed as charged against
this defendant, is circumstance TO be consid-
cred by you in connection with all the evil
dence In the case. An accused person has the
right to have every fact and circumstance in
his favor weighed by the jury.
Motive for the killing is an important essen
tlal fact in the trial of murder, particularly so
when the charge is sought 10 be maintained
solely by circum stantial evidence. If upon re-
| view of the whole evidence no motive is appar-
! ent or can be fairly imputed to the accused in
the commission OF the crime charged against
him, then this is circums tance in favor ofinno-
| cence and should be considered by YOU
The motive may not be apparent in many cases
OF homicide; there may be no motive discerni-
| Bile, except what arises at or near the time of
! the commission OF the act, and yet the killing
is not without motive. 1t may be in many
cases I'M possible to show or to establish affirm
atlyely motive, for the reason we cannot
| fathom the mind of the accused on trial and
ascertain II there is not a hidden desire of ven-
| geance or some passion to be gratified; be-
| SIDES there is no rule OF law which determines
! what is or what is not an adequate motive even
were it necessary to show one. Now, it is i'm
! portant tor the jury TO determine, from all the
evidence in the case, if any motive exists and
| appears in the present case on the part of the
uelehdant 10 commit the offense charged
! against him.
You have heard various theories advanced
| by the respective counsel in the case, which
they claim are based and founded upon the
evidence, ana II is for you to determine from
all the evidence in the case whether or not any
motive existed for the commission of the crime
charged against the defendant by this informa-
tion.
No limit to the
inference of 1notire.
| With regard to the grounds from which mo.
tive may be inferred, the law has never lin
lted them; therefore it is immaterial whether
the motive be hatred. wealth or the gratifica-
tlon OF desires or passions, or arising from any
other cause, so long as the motive exists. You
must bear in mind that motive, being an
auxiliary fact from which, ii established in
connection with other necessary facts, the
main CT primary fact of guilt may be inferred,
! 1T may be established by circumstantial evil
dence, the same as any other fact in the case
II the motive OF party IN committing a
! crime has been delared by him, or direct evil
dence can be given OF it by the prosecution,
| then such proof would be admissible, and
might tend to the conviction of the accused; /;
but the law does not require at the hands of
the prosecution any direct affirmative proof OF
the motive of any person com mmitting crime,
and one of the reasons for this rule, among
others, is that the individual whose motive is
sought to be ascertained may remain silent, or
II he speaks and has a crime to conceal may
speak untruly, and thus our minds are COM
PEELED from necessity to revert to the actual
physical manifestations OF the motive exhibited
~
only proof of the motive. Therefore, in deter
mining the question of presence or absence of
motive in the commission of crime, it is in
accordance with our general observation and
experience to infer motive by reference 10 the
laws which have been generally and usually
found to control human conduct. This rule Is
based on sound reason and universal expert
ence.
When a naotiue may be
inferred.
To illustrate this principle: If man being
Of ind nd in, fho ohcnn nf
impulse, without any quarrel, a word of
explanation or warning, should draw his pis-
toll and take aim and deliberately fire its con-
tents into the breast of another, and death
should Immediately follow such shooting. and
upon his arrest, and ever after, he should re-
fuse TO give any explanation or excuse for his
criminal net, upon the trial of such a man it
is certainly clear that the prosecution would
not be called upon to prove by affirmative
testimony what motive, or that any motive
impelled the accused to commit such homicide
for the reason that the law will presume that
he acted from motive, and that his actions
were prom pied by reason and were the result
of causes acting upon his mind and deemed
sufficient by him to inspire his action.
The latU Of circunastantial
evidence.
have been requested to charge you upon