The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1898-12-22

| yOnd a reasOna bic doubt, as heretofore
| explained, that James S. Collins was
murdered at the time and place and in
| the manner charged in the infOrma ton;
that defendant was present at the time
| of commission of the crime aiding, as
sisting or abetting in the commission of
such crime, he would be equally guilty
although the fatal shot or shots may
] have been fired by some other person or
persons.
But, under the election. as made by
the state, if the defendant, prior to the
commission of the Offense charged,
counseled, advised and procured some
other person or persons to commit the
offense, but was not himself personally
present at the time of its commission,
aiding assisting or abetting its COM
mission, then and in that case you
should return a verdict of not guilty.
One of the modes recognized by law
for impeaching the veracity of wit
ness, is the Introduction of witnesses
who testify that they are acquainted
with the general reputation for truth
and veracity of the person sought to
be impeached in the neighborhOOd where
he resides. And if the jury believe from
the evidence in this case that the gem
eral reputation of any witness who mas
testified before you for truth and verac-
ity in the neighbOrhOod. in which he re-
sides is bad. then the jury have right
to disregard the whole of such witness
testimony and treat it as untrue except
where it is cOrrObOrated by other credi-
BILE evidence, or by facts and circum-
stances proven on the trial
One of the modes of impeachlng q
witness is by showing that he has made
statements out of court at variance
with his statements on the witness
stand If you believe that any witness
who has testified in this case has made !
statements at other times and places
at variance with his testimony on the
witness stand in this case, regarding
any material matter testified to by him. |
then it is your province to determine TO I
what extent that fact tends to lmpeach !
either the memory or the credibility of !
the witness. or to detract from the |
weight to be given to his testimony.
The fact that the witness Johnson JOr- |
sentenced for the crime of burglary ana |
should be taken into consideration by you |
in your deliberations in the jury room IN |
determining what weight shall pc given |
If you find that any witness has been |
promised any valuable consideration |
therefor, then you have a ri$hf6 70 o.1 I3Re
ing what weight should be given to the |
There has been evidence given in this !
case as to certain statements and CONVEX |
stand has testified to certain statements |
and conversations made and mad with |
This class of evidence should be received |
and considered by the jury with caution |
party whose statements and converse tons |
are being given may not nave Y3,, for1ec +i |
party hearing the statements and conEer- |
standing of what was said or to fail in |
remembering it correctly, and from tie |
indrrnity of memory generally. But it is |
given 10 any such testimony, in the light !
of human experience generally. and BY |
in weighing testimony
pates in some, way in the commission OF |
the oHense charged, elther pIIHHclDitI OF
accessory; and the RUE OF law IS that a |
defendant cannot be convicted upon the |
LeStlInony OF an acCoInPfFlce OF jc
or accoinplices be corroborated by other |
l-9tter, III is not necessary that the a.
,Onplc~ o. accompices should be- corroo- /
fba{ 5a1 Po tas a e6lnas ABOUT " ne
If you then believe from the evidence in I
this case that any witness or witnesses !
v1eTe The aceompIices of the defendant in |
the commission of the crime charged, then |
you cannot convict the defendant upon the |
Ices unless such testimony is corroborat- |
ed upon some material matter;
the defendant was trying to negotiate with |
these colored men to kill his father and |
ing that they would carry out his wishes !
for the purpose of getting money from /
him, and with no intention OF conm1ttlI.g !
the crime, and did not participate IN the !
commission OF the crime then lnStTuet
within the meaning Of the lay 4Scaz h. ~,
defendant respecting his good character |
as a peaceable. orderly. and lawab1ding |
proper to be considered by the jury in con-
nectiOn with the other evidence in the case
the defendant respecting the matter |
charged against him
the defendant, prior to the time of the |
alleged offense, was a peaceable, orderly. !
lawabfding citizen of good character, then |
you should take that fact into considera- |
circumstances proven in the case for the |
purpose of determining his guilt or limo |
cence.
There has also been evidence offered in |
this case tending to prove that defendant |
was a dutiful and obedient son. of kind !
disposition and even temperament, ana /
that he maintained deep flial affectlon |
for the deceased his father. If you be- |
such a nature and that such feeling ex-
listed on his part toward the deceased, you |
have a right to take that fact into con- |
sideration in your deliberations in the jury |
room, together with all the other facts |
of determining whether the defendant /
would probably have committed the crime |
Where one person is carrying insurance !
upon his life in favor of another, and the /
beneficiary named in the policy murders |
the insured, such beneficiary would not be |
entitled to receive the proceeds Of the IN /
favor upon the life of the assured.
Your Verdict should be the expression of |
the concurrence of your individual judg- |
ment rather than the product of mixed |
t th,op1gR IT. It Is not the theory of Jury
age opinion of the jurors, but from the |
should By LED to the same ooneIusion3 and
this unanimous conclusion of twelve diff !
ferent minds is the certainty of fact |
sought in law. Before the state can de- !
mand the conviction of the defendant, /
each individual juror should be led from |
the testimony to 8, clear conviction of his /
If any one of the Jurors. after having I
evidence in this case, and after having con- !
suited with his fellow jurors, should still |
entertain a reasonable doubt of the de- |
PENDANTS guilt, then the jury cannot find /
If you find from the evidence. beyond a !
reasonable doubt, that the defendant is !
guilty of murder in the first degree as |
u. committed /