The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1903-10-29
THE LEON REPORTER. THURSDAY. OCTOBER 80, 1903

wrong inference we add the possibility
OF perjury or mistake in the premises
from which the inference is drawn.
We do not disparagc circumstantial evil
dence. 1t is legal evidence, the value
and necessity of which are beyond
question, but the point we wish to en-
phasize is, that the matter of it's weight
and it's influence upon the verdict in
any given case is for the jury alone and
the court should not by it's instructions
appear to draw a comparison or con-
trast between the two classes of evil
dence to the discredit of either. In
deed, the value of evidence, it's con-
clusiveness or Inconsistencies, de-
ponds not upon it's being either direct
or circumstantial but upon the manner
in which it appeals to the candid iudg-
ment OF the impartial juror honestly and
lntelligently seeking the truth. If
upon such an investigation of the entire
case as made upon the trial he is con-
WINGED of the guilt of the accused, to a
moral certainty, "beyond reasonable
doubt" then his verdict should be re-
turned accordingly without reference
to whether that conviction has been
produced in his mind by direct or cir
cumstantial evidence.
State VS.. Seymour, supra.
State VS.. Rome 81 Conn. 329.
Mickle VS.. State, q Ala 20.
Monghon VS.. State, 81 Ga. 1902.
Neither kind of evidence is infalli-
Bile. Each has it's inherent elements
of strength and of weakness. Their
relative weight and value are not mat
tiers of law to be settled by the court.
These will naturally vary in different
cases and must be left to the determine
alton of the jury.
The only precedent in our own de-
cisions which may be thought to sustain
the declaration of the trial court now
under consideration is in State VS..
Meelchen, supra, where the statement
that 'Strong circumstantial evidences
in cases of crime is often the most sat
isfactory" and that witnesses testifying
to direct fact may be guilty of per-
jury and to use q trite expression
circumstances will not lie," was with
out discussion held not to be objection
able. In the sense, ESQ it was intend
ed, that circumstances cannot con-
sciously utter a falsehood this is of
course true, and such we must conclude
is the meaning there placed upon in
struction, but we are strongly Impress
which the average juror would find in
language of the trial court, but would
rather conclude therefrom that the in
ferences to be drawn from incriminat-
ing circumstances are infallible or at
least of decidedly greater weight and
certainty than the direct testimony of
witnesses.
VII. In the 10Th paragraph of the
charge of the court admonished the
jury of the important and responsible
character of it's duties and among other
things said,
"On the one hand you should remcm-
Der that a failure to perform your duty,
by which a crime, if one is shown, might
go unpublished, and criminal escape
the penalty of his crime, cannot be
corrected by a new trial, for the
defendant cannot twice be put in ieop-
ardy under our law. The state de-
mands. and has a right to ask at your
hands the full performance of your duty
in the enforcement of the law, and no
notions OF mere sympathy or sentiment
tality, should cause you to hesitate in
the performance of your full duty.
And, on the other hand you should
never for a moment forget your duty to
secure and protect every right guaran-
teed by the Constitution and our law to
the defendant. You should not allow
any outside influence of pressure, or
Indignation at the crime, or sympathy
for the victim, or her relatives, to in
tluencc you to find a verdict in the
case
An instruction in substantially the
same language was before us in State
VS.. Hunter 81 N. w. S72 and by major
ity Of the court held to be erroneous.
That case was so recently decided we
think it Unnecessary to re-enter upon a
discussion of the question thus present.
ed. The majority remain satisfied with
the conclusion reached in that opinion
and think the giving of this instruction
was prejudiciaI error.
Other questions discussed are net
likely to arise upon a retrial and we do
not consider them.
For the reasons stated the Judgment
! below is reversed a I'd the case remand
eel to the district court for u new trial.
Saves Two From Death.