The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1896-05-13

| can be had, TO prove 10 your SatlS1ac
| ton beyond a reasonable doubt, thai
1 the crime alleged in said information
has been committed; that the same wa:
committed by the defendant in the man
ner and form as alleged; that the sam.
was committed in Sedgwick county, In
the state OF Kansas, and that the said
H. H. Leonard was at the commence
ment of the prosecution dead, and thai
he died by reason of the assault a:
aforesaid alleged 10 have been made
upon him.
The defendant is presumed to be in
tocent of each and every degree Of tbs
| offense charged against her until tbs
| contrary is proven TO your satisfaction
beyond reasonable doubt, and this
| presumption OF innocence remains with
the case until each and every ingredient
OF the offense charged has been proven
TO your satisfaction beyond a reason
able doubt.
REASONABLE DOUBT DEFINED
By reasonable doubt is not meant a
possible doubt, mere speculation, or z
| captious bubble; by reasonable doubt
IS meant that state of the case wherein
after the entire comparison and consid-
| Grafton Of all the evidence ii leaves the
| minds Of the jurors in that condition
| that they cannot say that they feel an
abiding conviction 10 a moral certain
| ~ Of the truth OF the charges, that is, TO
q certainty that convinces and directs
| The understanding, and satisfies the
reason and judgment of those who are
| bound to act conscientiously upon it.
| If you believe from the evidence be-
| yond a reasonable doubt that the alleg-
| ed murder was committed by one or
/ M nd ha lafa
Irene Leonard, stood by at the time and
| counceled, aided or abetted in the COM
mission Of the crime, or who, not be.
| ing present, had advised and encouraged
the commission of the same, she would
/ under the law be deemed guilty as pria-
| eipal and may be prosecuted and con-
victed as such.
And You are instructed that IL you
believe from the evidence beyond a rea.
sona5le doubt that the defendant, Irena
Leonard, and others. purposely, took
| part in the execution of crime, each as
| a principal in respect 10 the crime COM
| mitted by one of them in the execution
OF that common purpose. So If you be-
lieYe From the evidence in this case,
beyond reasonable doubt, that the de-
PENDANT, Irena Leonard, conspired or
| agreed with any other person TO assault
d. n. o.,
and If you further believe from the evil
| dence, beyond reasonable doubt, THAI
in pursuance Of said conspiracy, in fur
! therance of such common design, a blow
or blows was inflicted upon the body OF
the deceased, H II. Leonard, and by
a member Of such conspiracy, at the
time. and that said II. H Leonard was
Killed by blow or blows, then each OF
the members as the jury believe front
the evidence, beyond reasonable doubt
10 nave been the parties 10 such con-
sI1racy, is guilty of murder, whether
the identity Of the person infIicting such
blow or blows is established or not.
KNOWLEDGE IS SUFFICIENT.
You are instructed that knowledge of
the defendant, that II. H. Leonard was
killed would not be sufficient TO find her
guilty as principal, or as accomplice or
as accessory, but that you must find
from the evidence that she either com.
mitted the offense with which she IL
charged or else that she counseled. aid
ed or abetted the commission of said Of
fense; and in this connection the court
lnStructs that by counseling is mean,
advising, assisting or participating in
the said offense to such an extent that
the said advice, participation of assist
ance aided some one to commit said Of
Tense, and that the same was done for
that purpose.
If after this case IS finally submitted
&c you, you should he satisfied beyond a
reasonable doubt that the offense charg-
ed in the first count in the informa ton
was committed in the manner and form,
as charged in said informa ton, and
that the defendant is guilty, and enter
tain reasonable doubt as to which OF
the two degrees she is guilty, she should
m that event be convicted of the lower
degree Only.
The law requires that the prosecution
must establish every material fact nee
essary to be proven by legal and COM
petent evidence, and that the state mus.
prove every essential element of the
crime by legal and competent evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt and if the
state has failed TO prove every material
fact by competent evidence the Jury
nave no right to supply such omission
by any conjecture or opinion of their
own, ana If, after the investiga ton OF
this whole case, a single essential ele-
ment of the offense or a single materia,
TACT necessary to prove some essential
element in the crime or offense charged
Las not been proven by competent evil
delce TO your satisfaction, beyond a
reasonable doubt, You must acQuit the
defendant
CIfaCUMSTANTTAL EVIDENCE.
You are further instructed tina: cir
cumstantsal evidence is legal and COM
petent iE criminal cases and if il is of
such a character as 10 exclude every
reasonable hypothesis other than that
the defendant is guilty.it is entitled 10
the same weight as direct testimony.
And You are instructed that what is |
meant by circumStanjial evidence. in
cases, is proof Of such facts
and circumst anceS connected with and |
surrounding the commission OF the |
crime charged as tending 10 show the \
guilt or innocence of the party or par |
ties charged. And in reference to any |
evidence introduced IN |
this case that each and every part and !
link thereof must be in harmony and !
consistent with the whole, and must not |
be inconsistent with the guilt OF the de- /
PENDANT. And you are instructed that /
in the different facts that 60 to make |
up chain OF evidences, each individual |
fact thas constitutes or makes up the
principal fact and link in such chain,
need not be found true beyond a reason
able doubt. but must be proven to your
satisfaction, but each principal fact and |
link must be proven beyond a reasona-
bic doubt
You are further instructed that in de-
the question as TO the guilt /
Dr. innocence Of the defendant you may
AXE into consideration any evidece
,eding TO show a motive or want Of
motive or the part OF the defendant
10 commit the offense alleged
II is net incumbent upon the defend
ant 10 explain or deny any testimony
which might tend TO show guilt. but
z Is The d.ltN- Of the i,rr-y IN such l,asa !