The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-05-23

on some specific occasion and at some
specific time and place the said Martin
Hayken gave to said Joseph R. Morris,
the defendant, some specific sum of
money and that the same was so re-
ceived by the said defendant as bribe
with the feionious and corrupt inten-
ton then and there to influence the
said defendant in some of his official
acts as said selectman as charged in
the indictment, and you must be able
from the evidence given before you to
identify the particular occasion when
and what the specific sum which was
so given as a bride, or otherwise the
evidence will not support a conviction.
IIAYKEN WAS AN ACCOMPLICE.
The court further charges you that
an accomplice is a person who know
ingly, voluntarily and with common
intent with the principal offender
unites in the commission of a crme.
The court charges you that Martin
Hayken is an accomplice with the de-
PENDANT in the commission of the
crime alleged in the Indictment. IN
der the penal code of Utah it is pro-
vided, and the court charges you, that
ii is the law that a conviction cannot
be had on the testimony of an accom-
plice unless he is corroborated by
other evidence which, in itself and
without the aid of the testimony of
the accomplice tends to connect the
defendant with the commission of the
offense; and the corroboration is not
sufficient if it merely shows the COM
mission of the offense or the circum-
stances thereof. In a fact, the testi-
mony of an accompiice should be re-
celved by YOU with great caution and
dlstrust. You cannot therefore convict
said defendant UPON the testimony
of said Hayken alone. In order to
justify you under the law in finding
said defendant guilty, the testimony of
said Hayllen must be corroborated by
other evidence, which in itself and
without the aid of said Hayken's testi-
mony, tends to connect the defendant
with the commission of the offense
charged. Said corroborative evidence
must, of itself, ard without the aid of
the testimony of said Hayken, tend,
at least in some degree, to connect the
defendant with the commission of the
crime charged, and the law is complied
with if there is other evidence fairly
tending to connect the defendant with
the commission of the crime SO the
conviction will not rest entirely on the
evidence of an mclice.
OTHER EVIDENCE NECESSARY.
The independent evidence required by
the statute need not tend to establish
the precise facts testified to by the
accomplice; it is sufficient if, standing
alone, it tends to connect the defendant
with the commission of the crime. 1t
may be circumStantial in its nature
and not be sufficient in itself to estab-
lish the commission of the crime. If
it satisfactorily tends to connect the
Il
crime, though slight in it's weight, it
is then sufficient to authorize you to
consider the testimony of Hayken to-
gether with all the other testimony in
the case.
You are therefore instructed that if
you find there is evidence in the case
independent of the evidence of the
witness Hayken that tends without the
aid of the testimony of Hayken to
connect the defendant with the COM
mission of the crime charged in the
Indictment, you are authorized to con-
slider the testimony of the witness
Eayken, to determine its weight and
probability upon the whole evidence
in the case, to determine the question
of the guilt or innocense of the de-
PENDANT in accordance with and under
the rules prescribed in these instruc-
TONS
INNOCENCE PRESUMED.
The defendant having testified in this
case, / charge you that the jury have
no right to disregard the testimony OF
the defendant on the ground above
that he is the defendant and stands
charged with the commission OF d
crime. The, law presumeS him to be
innocent until he is proven to be
guilty beyond a, reasonable doubt; and
the law allows him to testify in his
own behalf, and the jury should fairly
and impartially consider his testimony
together with all the other evidence in
the case, and should consider and
weigh it the same as you would any
other witness. But in determining the
question of the defendants credibility
and the weight that should be given to
his testimony, you may take into con-
the situation of the defend
ant and the interest he may have in the
verdict in this case.
In determining the issues in this case
you should take into consideration the
whole of the evidence and all the cir
proved on the trial, giving
to the several parts of the evidence
such weight as you think they are en-
titled to. And in determining the
weight to be given to the several wit
nesses, you should take into consider
alton their interest in the event of the
suit, if any such is proved; the fact, if
such a fact is proven, that any witness
in this case has been induced to be-
come a witness by reason of any prom
Use of immunity from punishment for
any crime charged against such wit
ness; the conduct and demeanor of wit
nesses while testifying; their apparent
i,-ppcc, Or- hia If opu c11oh
their appearance on the stand; the
of the story told by
them, and all the evidence and cir
cumstanceS tending to corroborate or
contradict such witness, if such appear
in the case.
The burden of the proof is on the
prosecution to prove all the essential
and ingredient facts constituting the
offense charged as laid in the indict-
ment and explained to you by the court
to your satisfaction beyond a reason
able doubt.
l further charge you in this connec-
ton that mere probabilities are not
sufficient to warrant the conviction,
nor is it sufficient that the greater
weight or proponderance of the evil
lence supports the allegation of the
nor is it sufficient that up
On the doctrine of chance it is more
probable that the defendant is guilty.
In case there is a conflict in the tes-
-imony of the witnesses, it is your duty
to reconcile such conflict so far as you
,an, but after all, you must determine
for yourselves the ultimate truth in
The case. If you shall believe that any
witness has testified before you false
y concerning any material facts in the
ease, then you are at liberty to consider
that matter, and, if justified, you may
indeed disregard the whole of the tes-
-imony of such witness, except in SO
FAR as he may have been corroborated