The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-10-03

Judge IinslIcy- Delivers the Charge to
the Jury.
After readlng the Indictment. Judge had

After reading the Indictment. Judge Had
ley delivered the following instructions:
This Indictment is technically a charge
against the defendant of murder in the
first degree. But under such charge OF
murder in the first degree, IL the evidence
justifies. the accused can be found guilty of
eide defscd in the statutes OF Indiana.
namely: Murder In the first degree: murder
in the second degree. and granddaughter.
Counsel for the State in this case has ex-
rressly declared in yoeS hearing that the
defendant iz guilty OF nl6s.ser In the first
degree or second degree. or else that he
you are the judges of the law and the evil
dence. AID. Notwithstanding the declara-
ton OF the States attorney. you have the
right and must determine for yourselves
what degree OF felonlous homicide the de-
fendant is guilty Of Il guilty of any at all.
under the law and evidence, rs Il has been
ad1uced before ycu.
The statute of the State Of Indiana thus
defines the crime of murder in the first
degree, so far as applicable TO the indict-
ment and the evidence IN this case: Who
ever purposely and with prenedtated NAL
ice kills any human beng is guilty of muir
der In the FIRST degree And the statue OF
second degree as follows: Whoever pur-
posely and ma'iciously. but without pre-
meditation. kills any human being. Is guilty
of murder IN fhe second desrec. And the
statute of Indiana defines the crime of
manslaughter as fellows: 'Whosoever un-
lawfully kills any human being. without
tarily upon sudden heat. or involutarily.
but m the commission of rome unlawful
act. Is guilty OF maus.aughter.'
1T Will be Noted that manslaughter may
be either voluntarily involuntarily COM
mitted
'.The unlawful killing of human being
without malice. expressed or implied, vol
UNFAIRLY upon a sudden heat, constitutes
voluntary manslaughter.
The unlawful killing of a human beng
without malice, expressed or implied, in
voluntarily. but in the commission OF seme
unlawful act, constitutes involuntary man
slaughter.
the Indictment, which covers and embraces
the crirpe of murder in the iirst degree,
untary and involuntary manslaushter. the
defendant has pleaded not guilty.
REASONABLE DOUBT
Upon the issue thus joined the defendant
has been put upon his trial lie is not
called upon to establish his innocence. for
Notwithstanding the indictment against
him. fer all the purposes of this trial. the
law presumes him to be innocent of the
commission of any crime: this presumption
stood in his favor, not only at the begin
ming Of the trial of this cause, but con-
tinues throughout the entire trial. and there
can be no conviction in this cause unless
the evidence in the cause has wholly re-
| fed you beyond reasonable doubt or the
guilt of the accused.
And at this point the court will explain
| TO you what Is meant by reasonable doubt
1.-The rule of the law touching reasonable
doubt is practical rule for the guidance
| of practical men when engaged In the SOL
emn duty of assisting in the administra-
| tion of justice. 1t Is not, therefore, a rule
about which there is anything whimsical
Of error error or '' mistake that constitutes suca
reasonable doubt. Despite every precau-
ton that may be taken to prevent 1t, there
in all mi hmm
| affairs, mere possibility of error. If.
then. you are 50 convinced by the evidence.
ering ali the facts and circumstance in
1 evidence as whole, of the guilt of the
defendant. that prudent men you would
| matters OF the highest concern and i'm
/ portance to your own dearest and most
important interests. under circumstances
cion upon you to act at all. then YOU will
] have attained such degree of certainty as
excludes reasonable doubt ard authorizes
conviction.
I'm this case there has been no direct
and positive testimony that the accused
establish this fact. IL it does so tend. is in.
| direct ard circumstantial in It's character.
You are the sole and exclusive judges of
has no Fight in the least to express TO You
any opinion as TO the weight OF the evi-
dence. and will not do SO. And you must
these instructions as in anywise express,
ing any opinion as TO the Weight which
you should give any of the evidence In this
cause. Yet II is made the duty of the
court to advise you as 10 the law OF the
case. And upon the question OF the meas
Is wholly circumstantial. thescourt instruct
you that the law IS: 'Circumst tantial evil
dence Is. In It's nature. capable Of the high
est degree of moral certainty. yet from its
very nature II requires careful and patent
consideration. The true test by which n
determine the value OF circumstantai evil
derce. in respect 10 its sunlciency to war
I rant conviction In criminal cases. Is
not, whether the proof establishes cr-
coincide with the hypothesis Of the guilt OF
(Confln1ed q Fourth Pa9e1