St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-03-09
JUDGE SMITHS CHARGE.
1t Is Considered Fair by Both
Sides

1t Is Considered Fair by Both
Sides.
AS soon as Mr.. Erwin finished his
address, Judge Smith said:
Ihe defendant, Harry T. 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 a 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, a human
being, did kill and murder her by aid
procuring one Claus A. Blixt to un-
: lawfully shoot her with a leaden bull
let discharged from a 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 the same premeditated design on
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 premcditated 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 killing; that the de-
PENDANT was an accomplice' and the
main instigator of the murder. The
defendant can only be convicted, If
at all, of the charge as stated in the
first count in the indictment, to which
l have called your attention; he can
not be on the second.
1t is the law of this state that a per-
son concerned in the commission of a
crime, whether he directly commits the
act constituting the offense, or aids or
assists in it's commission, whether pres
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-
PENDANT commanded, induced or pro-
cured BIixt to kill and murder Miss
Cling, and he did kill and murder her in
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
that is If 1t had been contemplated and
. 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 a verdict against
him for murder in the first degree per-
petrated in the manner alleged in the
first count of Indictment Under the
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 Not 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 a 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
Gictment 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 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 a 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 limo
cence that can be reasonably drawn
from it. Before a person can be con-
Flcteo OF uiur9er II IS necessary 10
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
the proof is beyond any controversy,
| and as understand it, 1t is conceded