The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-05-03

/ Ny uSleliuanl TO MOTIFS and to explain
! the reason which he had for giving it,
In considering the question of the guilt
or innocence of the defendant such evil
dence can be considered only for the
purpose Of showing whether the defend
ant had motive or probable motive for
giving the alleged bribe. You cannot
convict the defendant of the offense
charged in the Indictment on any con-
clusion upon the evidence that he may
/ have cheated the county in the sale
Of the furniture by charging and receiv-
! ing therefor an exorbitant price.
You are instructed that in order to
convict the defendant of giving a bride
the evidence must satisfy your minds
| beyond a reasonable doubt that bride
was actually given by defendant to
Norris. It is not sufficient that the
defendant may have said that he had
given bride but there must be some
independent evidence that the alleged
bride was in fact given. The fact, if
it be a fact, that the defendant told
some one that he had given Morris
$4,000 as a brihe or that he had given
$40, 600 to officers in Salt Lake county to
get the contract for A. II. Andrews &
Co. to furnish the city and county
building would not of Itself be sufficient
to prove that bride had been given
Morris as is alleged in the Indictment.
When the fact is proven that bride
was actually given to Morris, these con-
fessions of the defendant wherever or
however made, become evidence to
prove that he is the person who gave
it.
Confessions Of defendant out of
court are a doubtful species of evil
dence and should be acted upon by the
jury with great caution and unless they
are supported by some other evidence
tending. to show that the defendant
committed the crime they are rarely
sufficient to warrant conviction.
You are further instructed that in
every criminal charge there is what is
called the corpus deficit or body of the
offense. This means the fact that
crime has actually been committed.
This fact must be found and proved
before the jury can consider the ques-
ton of who it was who had committed
it and in this case I charge you that
before you can convict this defendant
of the crime charged in the indictment
you must believe from the evidence
given before you in this case beyond a
reasonable doubt, that a bride was ac-
tually given by defendant to Joseph K.
Morris in his official capacity as Sc
lectman and that there must be indie
pendent evidence tending to prove 1t
outside of any alleged OR supposed ad-
missions or confessions of the defend
ant. Such proof. however, may be made
by circumstantial evidence provided 1t
establishes the fact to your satisfaction
beyond a reasonable doubt; and before
you can say that the corpus dellctl
has been proved. you must ind from
the evidence beyond a reasona bic doubt,
that on some specific occasion the de-
PENDANT gave Joseph r. Morris some
specific sum of money or other speclflc
thing of value as a bride and you must
be able from the evidence given befoTe
YOU to identify the particular occasion
when and what the specific sum or
thing was. which was so given as
bride. otherwise the evidence Will not
support a conviction.
Il further charge you in TINS con-
nection that mere probabilities are
not sufficient to warrant a conviction
NOR is it sufficient that the greater
weight or preponderance OF the
evidence supports the allegations OF the
indictnert. nor is it sufficient that upon |
the doctrine of chance it is more prop
q HE that the defendant is guilty 10 |
warrant a conviction of the defendant
he must be proved guilty so clearly ana
that there is no reasonable
theory on which he can pc illnoce ~.
when all the evidence is considered To-
gether.
You are further charged that under
the law of this state a defendant in
criminal case may testify IN ms own
behalf. The defendant in this case |
has seen fit not to testify NO inference
or conclusion unfavorable or preJual-
cial to the defendant can be INDUCED |
nv Won because of his failure to tes-
tifv, And even though you might |
think that if he had testified he could
have explained some things in the case
which may now seem inexplicable TO !
YOU. you cannot consider his failure to I
testify as a circumstance or fact in the |
case for any purpose whatever.
FOR THE PROSECUTION.
By request of the prosecution his
honor gave the following instructions
to the jury:
THE Jury is further instructed in |
this case that if the evidence tending
to show admissions of guilt on the part |
of the defendant is sustained by evil
dence of other facts showing that the
crime charged in the Indictment has
been committed then such admissions,
even though entirely unequivocal,
should be taken into consideration with
all the other evidence in the case by the
jury and should be allowed such rights
as in the opinion of the jury they are
entitled to.
1.-THE court further instructs you that
it is not necessary that the entire
amount of money alleged to have been
paid to the said Joseph R. Morris on
a bride should be made at one time, II
YOU find from the evidence beyond
reasonable doubt that several payments
were made at different times, if such
payments were all in pursuance of a
single understanding and agreement,
that his vote. opinion or action on the
question of the acceptance of this fur
niture and fittings and the making of
appropriations therefor should be cor
ruptly Influenced thereby.
THE court instructS the jury that
evidence is legal and
in criminal cases and, if it
IS of such a character as to exclude
every reasonable hypothesis other than
that the defendant is guilty, it is en-
titled to the same weight as direct tes-
Limony
The court further instructs the jury
that what is meant by circumstantial
evidence in criminal cases is the proof
IF such facts and circumstances con-
lected with or surrounding the COM
mission Of the crime charged as tend
10 show the guilt or innocence of the
party or parties charged, and if these
acts and circumstances are sufficient
% satisfy the jury of the. guilt of the
defendant beyond a reasonable doubt &
hen such evidence is sufficient to au-
.horize the jury in finding a verdict of