St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-03-09
JUDGE SMITHS CHARGE.

JUDGE SMITHS CHARGE.
Sides.
AS soon as Mr.. Erwin finished his !
address, Judge Smith said:
The defendant, Harry 7. Hayward,
is charged by the indictment on which
he is now being tried with the crime
OF murder in the first degree, which is
defined by the criminal code to be the
killing of a human being, unless it be
excusable or justifiable, when perpetu-
ated with premeditated design to -
feet the death of the person killed or
OF another. The indictment in this
case contains two counts, or, in other
words, charges the offense to have
been committed in two different ways.
The first count, or charge stripped
of its technical legal verbiage, charges
that the defendant, on the Sd day of
December, 1894, in the county of Hen
nepin, state of Minnesota, without
the authority of law and without ex-
cuse or justification therefor, and
with a premeditated design to effect
the death of Catherine Cling, human
being, did kill and murder her by aid
ing and abetting and inducing and
procuring one Claus A. Blixt to un-
I lawfully shoot her with a leaden bull
let discharged from pistol, which en-
: tered and passed through her head,
thereby causing her death; and that
Blixt, in aid of the defendant and at
his procurement, perpetrated the act
with ha a6if ifat ta6 1aGiepp
his part to effect the death of Cath
crime Cling, unlawfully and without
excuse or justification.
The second count, or charge, in the
Indictment, charges the defendant
with the same premedttated design to
kill Catherine Cling at the same time
and place named in the first count, by
shooting her himself personally.
There has been no evidence intro
duced by the state to support the
charge in the second count of the in
dictment. 1t is not claimed by the
state that the defendant killed Miss
Cling by shooting her himself, but that
he aided and abetted and induced and
procured Claus A. Blixt to do the
Shooting and Rf11flgss that the de-
fendant was an accomplice- and the
defendant can only be convicted, if
at all, of the charge as stated in the
first count in the indictment, to which
I have called your attention; he can
not be on the second.
1t is the law of this state that per-
son concerned in the commission of a
act constituting the offense, or aids or
n ,fcfc IN, icci xuhot
ent or absent, and a person who di-
rectly or indirectly commands. induces
or procures another to commit a crime,
is the principal and shall be indicted
and punished as such. So, if the de-
fendant commanded, induced or pro-
cured BIixt to kill and murder Miss
pursuance of and in obedience to such
command, inducement or procurement,
although the defendant was not pres
ent at the time of the killing, and took
no part in the act of killing, and did
not personally fire the shot that pro-
duced her death, he would be a prin-
cipal in the act and equally as guilty
as if he had been present and had
done the act himself; If he had pre-
mediated the design to effect her death;
decided upon by him before the act was
done, the accomplishing of the design
by Blixt in effecting her death, in pur-
suance of such command, inducement
or procurement, would be sufficient to
charge the defendant as principal in
the crime and justify verdict against
him for murder in the first degree per-
petrated in the manner alleged in the
: first cn11pt of in6ictpnapt Trndar tho
evidence as it stands in this case, if
the defendant is found guilty it must
be of murder in the first degree. So
your verdict must be mot guilty. or
Guilty in the manner and form as
alleged in the first count of the indict-
ment"
When "a person is charged with a
crime the law presumes him to be in
nocent until he is proven guilty. The
fact that he has been indicted and
called upon to stand trial ON the of
Tense charged does not remove that
presumption, and the presumption con-
tinues until it is removed by evidence
which will satisfy the jury of his guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.
In order to convict the defendant and
to justify you in bringing in verdict
OF guilty under this indictment, you
must be satisfied from all the evidence
IN the case of his guilt of the offense
charged in the first count of the in
cictment beyond a reasonable doubt
That is, when the whole evidence in the
case, carefully examined, compared
and weighed by you, produces on your
minds a settled conviction or belief of
the defendants guilt, such a convic-
ton as you would be willing to act upon
in matters of the highest concern re-
lating to your own affairs. The evil
dence should leave your minds in that
condition that you can say you feel an
abiding conviction to a moral certainty
OF the truth of the charge. Absolute
certainty is not-required; but reason
able certainty, such a certainty as sat
isles your reason and judgment to the
extent that you would feel bound to
act conscientiously upon it.
Juries in criminal cases should not
convict on suspicion or upon a pre-
ponderance of evidence, as in civil
cases; but only upon evidence estab-
fishing the guilt of the defendant be-
yond a reasonable doubt, and incon-
sistent with any hypothesis of inno-
cence that can be reasonably drawn
from It. Before a person can be con-
victed of murder it is necessary to
prove the death of the person named
in the indictment as having been
killed, and the fact of the killing by the
defendant as alleged In the Indictment.
Each must be established as independ-
ent facts. The former by direct evil
dence and proof, and the latter be-
yond reasonable doubt. In this case
4 Dc
and as understand 1t. 1t is conceded