The Dickinson press., 1904-11-05

A design to effect death sufficient to consti-
,ntc murder, may be formed instantly. before
committing the act by which it is carried into
1t is sometimes exceedingly difficult to ascer-
tain the design or intent with which certain
acts are performed.
Sometimes the intent may be formed and
lingcr in the mind for days, weeks. and even
years before eliminating in the criminal act.
AT other times the intent or design may be
almost instantly, and simultaneously
with the performance of the criminal act.
In some cases none but the Supreme Being
can with absolute and perfect ACCURACY discover
The design or the motive which prompts the
design and serves az an incentive to carry the
design into effect or execution.
Therefore our laws have laid down certain
rules and principles to aid and guide jurors in
their endeavors to ascertain tho design or
intent.
Under these rules and principles of law
jurors may ascertain the intent of q man
charged with crime, from his acts-what he
says or does, and the surrounding circumstances
as disclosed by the evidence.
One of the general rules of law in this regard
is that the natural and probable consequences
of every act deliberately performed by a person
of sound mind ure presumed to have been in
tended and designed by the author of such act.
Apply this principle to the facts as disclosed
by the evidence in this case. If you find from
the evidence that the defendant, at the, time
and place mentioned and described in the in
formation, did shoot off and discharge a deadly
at and upon u vital part OF the body of
Ole P. liner, the deceased; then according to
the foregoing rul- he would be presumed to
have intended and designed to kill said liner,
able consequences of such acts would be tho
death of said Elmer, unless the circumstance
snrrou. ding the killing raise q reasonable
doubt as to whether such design existed.
AS Il general rule there is u motive back Of
every criminal act. In many cases, however,
1t Is difficult and sometime almost impossible to
discover the motive: In this case it is your
duty to call to mind the facts as disclosed by
the evidence. for the purpose of ascertaining
whether or not any motive has been shown on
the part OF the defendant to commit the al
legged crime.
IT, on examination, you find any such motive
is discloscd. YOU should take it into account in
and c.n sidering the evidence in this
case. II. on the other hand, You find that the
circumstance, and facts as dIeclJ.c1 by the
q" not reveal any snch motive, then
in weighing tho testlnirnS you >,.,sId take into
account the failure of proof rs t ) n.o i've.
The defendant in this case has entered Il plea
of not guilty. by 70 doing he has denied each
and every material allegation in the informa-
ton, and the burden was thereby cast upon the
state to prove the truth of each of said material
allegations beyond q reasonable doubt; and if
the state has done this it will be your duty to
convict tho defendant; otherwise you should
ae1F Si o,ena,n
the presumption OF innocence. Every person
accused OF crime Is presumed to be innocent and
such presumption continues in his favor until
his guilt is established by evidence which satis-
guilt.
In order to constitute murder in the first
degree as charged in the information, the kill
ing must have heen vii ul, with malice afore-
thought, and with premeditation and delibera-
ton, and thcrc must have been u specific,
deliberate and prHmeditated intention to take
word generalization is a prior determination to
do the act in question:; premeditated means
previously considered; r~evolved in the mind
beforehand. It is not essential that the pre-
should accupy my considerable
period of time before forming and carrying
into execution the criminal intent. If the
intent or determination is once formed, it 10 no
diately than if it is deferred to a later period.
Murder is the second degree differs from
murder in the first degree only in the fact that
meditation or deliberations; thus, where q
person forms a design in the midst of a conflict.
and Immediately executes such q design. the
killing is not premeditatsd. and is therefore no
higher offence than murder in the second
degree.
Malice may DO inferred from acts. If an act
Is unlawful and is of such a character as that
be to produce great bodily harm or to endanRer
the life of a person. the law will infer malice.
Malice is the condition of the mind which
nature bent on mischief, the existence Of which
ls inferred from tho acts committed or words
spoken.
Malice aforethought need not exist for any
considerable length Of time, but If it exists q
moment before the killing, it is sufficient. II
the defendant: while in the possession Of his
sufficiently to conceive q design,
a direct tendency to destroy another's life, the
jury would have the right to presume from that
fact that he intended the natural consequences
of his act.
As. heretofore intimatcd, o defendant in q
criminal action is presumed to be innocent until
the contrary is proved, and in case of a reason
able doubt as to whether his guilt is %satisfac-
When 1T appears that q defendant has com
mitted a public offence, AMI. there is reasonable
ground of doubt in which Of two OF more
lowest Of such degrees only.
A reasonable doubt of the guilt Of the accused
is that stnte of the ease which, after an entire
dence and law in the case, leaves the minds Of
the Jurors In that condition that they cannot
say that they have an abiding conviction to-
moral certainty, of the truth Of the charge. 1t
is not sufficient to establish a probability,
though a strong one, that the fact is more likely
to be true than the contrary; but the evidence
must establish the truth Of tho f9ct'as chirged
in the information, to q reasonable aud poral
certainty-a certainty that convinces and
directs the understanding aud satisfied the
reason and judgment of each juror.
A doubt produced by an undue sensibiliS in
the mind Of a juror in view of the consequences
of mis- verdict. is not a reasonable doubt ind a
juror is not allowed to create sources or 1ater-
ials of doubt by resorting to trivial or f4ciful
suggestions and remote. eonjectures az to q |
possible state Of facts different fromthose |
established by the evidence. |
The rule of law which throws arou4a de- |
a presumption of innocence, I'D re-
quires the state to establish beyond q reatnable
doubt every material fact ayerred in th(infor.
nation. is not intended to shield those NO are
guilty. from just and merited a4nish-
ment;, but 1t is a humane provision IT law
which is intended for the protection Of the
innocent and to guard, az far as human afncies
can, against the conviction OF those u5ustly
of crime.