Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1895-05-29

circumstantial or that the evidence is
made up from facts and circumstances
introduced and sworn TO by witnesses,
provided that you believe that the facts
and circumstances 80 offered in evidence
point to the guilt of the defendants of the
crime charged to the exclusion of any
reasonable hypothesis of guilt, and if you
believe, beyond reasonable doubt, from
such facts and circumstances 80 intro
duced in evidence, that the defendants, in
manner as charged in the indictment,
shot and killed the deceased, Francisco
Chavez, you will find the defendants
guilty.
You are further instructed that test-
mony has been offered tending to show
confessions or admissions made by Fran
cisco Gonzales Borrego, one of the de-
PENDANTS. This evidence, gentlemen, is
competent and admissible for your con-
sideration with all of the other evidence Of
fered in the case, and if you believe from
the evidence that Francisco Gonzales y
Borrego made statement after the COM
mission of the homicide in relation to
the killing of Francisco Chavez to one
Domingo Apo3aca, and if you be-
lieve that this admission was freely and
voluntarily made by the said defendant
Francisco Gonzales y Borrego, to the
said Domingo Apodaca, then you are to
consider all of the statements, admissions
and confessions made by the said Fran
cisco Gonzales Borrego to the said wit
as that which is against him. The law
hal Aoka nak H. l. A.
PENDANT, if against him, is true and the
law presumes it to be true because it is
against him, and the jury may believe
all or any part of the said admission or
confession as they may think it is en-
TITLED to credit and consistent with the other
testimony offered in the case, and if you
believe, beyond reasonable doubt, from
all of the evidence offered in the case, in
cldding the admissions and confessions
made by the said defendant, Francisco
Gonzales y Borrego, as we'll as all of
| the other testimony offered by the terri
tory and by the defendants, that the. de-
PENDANT, Francisco Gonzales y Borrego, is
guilty of the crime charged in manner
and form as charged in the indictment,
then you will so find IN your verdict.
You are further instructed that these con-
fessions or admissions so made by the
said Francisco Gonzales y Borrego to the
said witness, Domingo Apodaca, are to
be considered by you as affecting the
GUILT OR INNOCENCE
of the defendant, Francisco Gonzales y
Borrego, and they are not to be consid-
cred by you in determining the guilt or
innocence of the other defendants.
One of the defenses interposed by the
defendants IN this case is what is known
in the law as an alibi, that is, that the de-
PENDANTS were at another place at ne
time of the commission of the homie g.
1t is claimed by three of the defenda ),
Francisco Gonzales y Borrego, Ant . O
Gonzales y Borrego and Laureano a
rid, that they were at the house
; Seferino Alarid playing cards fro z
: O'Clock till IL O'Clock at night on vne
night of the homicide, and, it is claimed,
that the other defendant, Patricio Valen-
cha, was at his home, each of them some
distance from the place where the homi-
, eide was committed.
The court instructs you as to this defense
. that such defense is as proper and as
, legitimate, if proved to your satisfaction
as any other, and all the evidence bear
: ing upon that point Is to be considered
= by you. The burden of proof to estab
: lish this defense of alibi is upon each Of
e the defendants and they must So estab
y fish it by preponderance of the evi
y dence to the satisfaction of the jury. The
e defense of albi to be entitled to consi
deration must be such as to show to your
8 satisfaction that at the very time of tn,
9 commission of the crime charged the de-
Q PENDANTS were at another place so fal
n away or under such circumstances tha
9 they could not have reached and been a
j. the place where the crime was committed
l. 80 as TO have participated in it's commits
l. sion. The defendants are not required
) to prove the alibl beyond a REASONABLE,
9 doubt, but it is sufficient if you are salts
r fed by preponderance of the evidence
/, that the defendants were not at tn
/. place where the crime was committed a
e the time of the homicide. If, therefore
Q after q consideration of all of the evi
Q dence introduced in the case, as wei
!. that in relation to the alibi offered by tn,
9 defendants as that offered by the terri
B, tory, you have reasonable doubt as t,
y whether the defendants, Francisco Con
9 zales Borrego, Antonio Gonzales
j. Borrego, Laureano Alarid and Patriot,
o Valencia, were at the place where tn
l. crime was committed or were in SOM
y other locality away from the place of tn,
9 homicide when the crime was committed
9 then you should give the defendants tn
9 benefit of this doubt and find them no
h guilty.
It You are the sole judges, gentlemen
h of the credibiity of the witnesses and o
j. the weight to be attached to their testi
. mony. If you believe from the evidence
t in this case that any witness has know
g ingly and willfully sworn falsely to am
9 material matter, then you are at libsrt,
|, to disregard the whole or any part of tn
|, testimony of such witness. In determin
j. ing the credibility which you will attach
= to the testimony of any witness, you ma.
Is consider the interest which he may hav1
g. in
o THE REBUILT OF THIS TRIAL,
\ his or her bias, prejudice or feeling, j
Il any they have exhibited either for o.
against the defendants in the case; ant
> the consistency or reasonableness of the
i story which he or she tells.
# In determining the guilt or innocenc'
/ of the defendants of the crime charged
a you are to consider the entire evidence
e offered in the case, but you are at libert,
& to disregard the statements of such wit
r ness or witnesses, if any there be VIII
n have, in your Judgment, been success
n fully impeached in such manner as not {,
= entitle them to credit, whether this i'm
4 parchment consist either of direct contra
: dictions or of differe Mt ats teme nts made h,