Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1902-09-27
Roy Kaighn
Found Guilty.
co., u, Oftense Was One of Voluntary Manslaughter
~ q,,Jjd This Morning tutors Tehberafed Eight
u,,s Beose Reaching Thes Decision-4o be Sentenced
oa 3-Hou Ae Defendant Took IL

jury had reached such verdict he
guessed he would have to stand for 1t.
EICHNORs CLOSING ARGUMENT.
After the News" report closed yes
terday afternoon District Attorney
Elchnor made the closing argument for
the state in which he replied with force
TO the arguments Of the attorneys for
the defense. He said that the attorneys
did not dare to analyze the testimony
of Miss Coates In regard to the as
sault. He argued that Il carried with
1t the earmarks Of falsehood; that 1t
was entirely too improbable and II the
jury believed II they should not stay
out five minutes. but should return a
verdict of acqulttal.
In regard TO the state not producing
Mr.. Gardner and other witnesses, tina
district attorney argued that that was
all talk. that If the defense wanted
those witnesses they could have called
them and did not have TO wait for the
state to do so. As for the
police gathering evidence In
criminal actions, he maintained that
It was their duty to do so, and If they
ia not do Il they would be considered
blockheads. Mr. Echnor strenuously
denied the accusation of the attorneys
for the defense that he had coached the
witnesses In this case and stated that
never since he had been prosecuting
attorney had he coached single Wit
ness.
As to the boy being insane he said
that IL he had been a boy Of any Of the
Jurors they would have had him ey-
amined by the court as 10 his sanity
and would have had him placed under
proper restraint. He ridlculed the idea
Of Miss Coates going TO a public ball
with defendant. just four days before
the shooting, knowing that the boy was
considered insane. In closing he told
the jury that, If they believed the
stories that had been produced by the
defense, they should not hesitate mo-
ment hut should acquit the boy but
If on the other hand. they believed that
the law had been violated they should
return a verdict Of guilty regardless OF
the consequences.
CHARGE TO THE JURY.
Judge Morse then charged the jury
rs to the law In the case, His charge
contained 33 different points and was
clear and comprehensive. He charged
that the three defenses presented.
namely, insanity, self-defense ana JUS
tification. were proper defenses and
could be properly joined In regard 10
the plea OF insanity, he charged that II
tlere was any doubt as 10 the boy s
sanity verdict OF not guilty Should De
rendered. Voluntary intoxication, he
raid. was no excuse for the act, but In.
sanity produced by such causes would
excuse the act, just the same as IN
sanity from any other cause. As TO
self-defense. the court charged that the
boy was justified II II appeared that ne
had reason TO believe he was In bodily
danger when the shot was fired, and IN
considering that matter he instructed
the Jury 10 take into consideration the
physical disparity beween the boy ana
the man whom he shot. On the tnlrd
defense. Judge Morse charged the jury
that Miss Coates was relative OF the
defendant within the meaning OF the
statutes and the plea of justification
IN account Of the alleged assault was
a competent plea. The court also
charged the Jury that II the evidence
was not sufficient TO find verdict OF
murder In the first degree they could
bring in verdict In lesser degree,
Judge Morse concluded his charge at
5 o'clock and the case was placed IN the
Lands Of the jury.