The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1901-11-21

guilty. That. the court q no right 10
suggest to the jury that the defendant
can appeal to the supreme court to
correct any mistake that they may make
against the defendant. That the court
erred in permitting the attorney for the
state in his opening statement to the
jury to stste that the state expected to
prove that defendant had committed
numerous sbortions upon different
parties. That the court erred in per.
uniting the attorney for the state in his
closing argument to the jury to call the
defendant a sleeper" and use other vile
names not warranted by the evidence.
which was p%rejudicial to DEFENDANTS
interests and rights. That the court
erred in not sustaining defendants
challenge to the jurors Charles Fisher
and Levi Pond, for, the reason said
Jurors had read in substance all the tes.
tlmony in the case, and had formed or
expressed opinions as to the guilt or
Innocence of the accused which il
would lake evidence to remove. That
the court erred in permitting the intro.
ductlon of the letters from Ira Hammond
to Maud Stone Tor the reason that said
letters were written prior to January.
IL, l9ol, the earliest time at which there
was any evidence or claim by the state
OF II arrangement or conspiracy be-
tween Ira Hammond and the defendant
That the court erred in admitting tha
testimony of Ben Sears and wife. and
Levi Brooks as to statements made -
them by the defendant, for the reason
that said statements were made severa,
years ago and long prior to January.
1901.
In overruling the motion for a new tria,
Judge Towner said:
In stating that it must be proven no.
yond a reasonable doubt, l hardly
think that counsel would insist upon
that objection unless it should be upon
the theory that every time reference
was made to it that the Court should
repeat that it should be proven beyond
a reasonable doubt. The Court has civ.
en- to the jury in the strongest possible.
language The very thought that counsel
suggests. In the End instruction the
Court uses this language:
The Court instructs the iury that II il
upon the State to prove.
every material element as the Indictment.
therein charges and will raise no pre-
sumptions against the defendant and
nothing is to be taken by Implication.
Inc defendant is deemed innocent Of
the crime of which he is charged until
ne is proven guilty. Every material
1act necessary to constitute such
crime must be proved beyond a reason.
able doubt and should you entertain IN
reasonable doubt upon a single fact
element necessarily. to constitute 1
crime 1t it your duty to give the defeJ
ant the benefit of the doubt and acl
him.. am unable to see how it v
pc possible for the Court to pdl
stronger Language the etdeasas'eueyMj
by defendants counsel. To write q
time, beyond a reasonable doubt. an
the Court has said that evety material
element must be proven and has speci-y
led namely and carefully all Of the ele-
ments OF the essentials that the state
must prove before the defendant can be-
convicted, after telling the jury that nm
less they findsthe defendant guilty upon j
every single element that is essential to
constitute the crime they must acouit.
the Court is unable to state n more
strongly at the suggestion of counsel.
Regarding the 11th instruction the OBJ
lection is made that in stating the facts
which under our law constitute a prin.
cipal rather than accessory aud in tell.
ing the jury Of the distinction between
a principal and accessory has been alb.
rogated and under u law any person
who is engaged directly or indirectly,
whether he do so himself, aided or abet.
ted, he would be guilty.
The Court referred to and specified
the time and place where this particular
crime was committed or claimed to have
been committed. The Court does not
think there is any mistake. There must
nave been no misunderstanding. The
Court is not instructing in the elements
OF the crime. The Court has already
done that. He is now telling what de.
gree of connection is required IN order
to warrant a conviction and it is not
necessary for the Court to refer tolthat.
Regarding the 4th instruction regard
ing circumstantial evidence. 1t is q
quite singular fact that the particular
phrases of the instruction to which
council objects and upon which they
visit their most severe criticism is the
exact language the Court quoted from
the Supreme Court of Iowa. 1t is said
regarding this statnent in the language
given and to which Counsel 80 strenu.
~,.-1. = - - q 1911 IA nN8a.EEah4. 81