The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1898-02-11

for he did not deny the larceny The only the evidence
would have would be accumulate evidence point not
denied from which supposed the jury might infer Ill will
prejudice of witness against another witness and
ferentially only against defendants.
Exception p, the charge of the the degrees OF
murder The charge the bill of exceptions fol
lows a. hat the jury could under the testimony IN the
convict Kapea of oene less than murder in the first
degree O that the could under the testimony convict
Kapea murder in the degree 90 that their verdict
Kapea should be guilty of murder in the first degree
guilty; N that their verdict to Kao should be guilty OF
being accessory before after the fact the oense OF
der the first degree or not guilty % that the jury II they
believed that osepa murdered Dr. Smith with deliberate,
premedaed malice aorethough and that Kapea present.
adng abettng encouraging the murder should convict SAID
Kapea of murder In the first degree CO. objection also made
the courts definition of the oense of manaughter The
Judge charged on this point in the following language:
IF you believe from the evidence that the witness 1okepa
and the defendant Kpea the house of Doctor Jared K
Smith the day named in the Indictment and that defendant
Kapea then and there shot and killed Doctor Smith with
deliberate premetated malice aforehough without authority,
justification exenuaton by law; if you believe that
Doctor Smith killed by Iokepa and that Kapea
present and aided melted countenanced encouraged the
murderer in the commission of the oense then, and in either
you will find the defendant Kapea guilty of murder
the first degree
In order convict Kapea you be satisfied from the
evidence that the has proved his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt and have abiding conviction that
he is the person who fired the fatal shot that he present
aiding, abetting encouraging the murderer.
f you believe the evidence of the witnesses Johnny and
Iokepa be how Kapea mpeed by feelings of i'll
will against the DOCTOR planned beforehand the
doctor for the purpose of killing him nights of
that week before the Friday night and how the Friday
night he the doctors house for the purpose and
how he lay wait for him that night and shot him,
then that killing deliberate premeditated malice
afoethought within the meaning of the law, and you find
Kapea guilty of murder in the first degree But you believe
from the evidence that the time of the alleged killing Kapea
in fact Paupau house and at the doctor if the
evidence does prove beyond reasonable doubt that
Kapea who fired the fatal shot, that Iokepa fired the fatal
shot and Kapea present aided melted
him in
must find Kapea guilty.
This the important points in the and has
before been decided in this country The present statute
OF murder enacted in 1890 and is in part follows: Penal
Laws PIP. 1913.
81 Murder the killing of any human being with malice
aforehough without authority, justification extenuaon by
found by the jury.
49, When the killing another proved malice afore
thought shall be presumed and the burden shall rest upon the
party who committed the killing to show that it did not exist
a legal justification extenuaon therefor
49, Murder committed with deliberate pemeditated malice
aforehought in the commission of attempt commit any
punishable with DEATH committed with atrocty
cruelty is murder in the first degree.
40 Murder appearing be in the first degree murder
il the second degree
A. Whoever guilty of murder in the first degree shall
ST fer the punishment of death.
A. Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree shall
be punished by Imprisonment at hard labor for life for
of years less than twenty the discretion of the
A. Whoever kills human being without malice afore
thought and without authority justification extenuaton by
law, is guilty of the ofense of mansaughter
45 Mansaughter is of three degrees and the jury under
Indictment for murder manslaugher may return verdict
of manslaugher in either degree of assault and battery,
the facts proved will
Counsel for defendant contend that the makes it
the province of the jury find the degree of murder the
invaded their province by charging did But the jury
bound take the law from the The much debated sub
ect whether the jury the judges of the law well of
the facts in criminal is settled in this country by Sec
of the Act Reorganize the Judiciary Chap 5 Laws 1922
which reads A questions of law arising any shall
be decided by the Judge before whom the
pendng and the instructions of such judge in relation
to the law shall be binding upon the jury, any be
paneled in the cause Murder in the first degree differs
murder In the second degree in that in the first degree the
murder must be committed with deliberate preedated malice
&c. There evidence that the murder deliberate and
premedaed and there absolutely evidence that the
killing done in to make the deed offense
of lesser degree The court though prohibited by
the sniciency the Meioht evidence