The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-11-09

murder was perpetrated by means
poison, or lying in wait. or torture.
CT by any other w1i4fuf. deliberate
and premeditated killing. or IN the
perpetrallon or ATTEMPT to perpetrate
ROBBERY. This ingredient Of deliher-
ate premeditated killing must he
clearly shown and proven beyond oil
rea sonable doubt. 1t is not sufficient
mat you think the klling was DELHI
craze and premeditacez1. the evidence
must convince you OF that fact to On
lang certainly and beyond all res-
sonahle doubt. The evidence Of de-
liberation and generalization must be
such as to convince you that the de-
liberate premdated design and pur
pose to murder was knowingly and
intentionally formed and considered
in the mind of each defendant and
meditated upon before the fatal blow
was struck: and in considering wheth-
| or such design wa formed in II" .
minds of each of the defendants, you
| should consider the evidence. if any, ].
of drunkenness. If the defendants
were drunk at the time and were
! too much intoxicated to form y deli
berate and premeditated purpose
they cannot he founu guilty OF muir
| DER in the nrst Legree. 1t is true
! that drunkenness is no excuse for the
! commission of an offense, but never
theless the jury must consider the
evidence of drunkenness and deter
mine whether it was sufficient to so
c.oud the minds of the defendants as
10 interefere with the formation Of
deliherate and nremeditated purnose
f-i1 Ir--p SIIf-
ticient to create reasonable DOUBT
n your minds as to the existence ~
such deliberate premeditated pul'.
pose, you cannot find the defendants
grl;y of murder in the hrst degree"
Counsel for defendants attack the
courts instruction No. .. as being an
, erroneous statement Of the law, am
2. }ig0rs and misleading. consequently.
highly r"eudicial to the defendants
he Instruction complained Of was
= Iou loss copied in the main frOIa an
- instruction that has = number e.
, times net with the approval Of tho
. Supreme Court Of aha rrnla.
. iPaopIe Y Williams. - Cal. SO.
:, paa.lo y. iseIercia y Id 80: Peo-
e nle Y. Lewis So ID. 81, People. v
I et'rr.S. - l.. 80; Pocn'o z Jones ~
Id. 1G>: people Y. Vincent. % II 80:
! Pac 5>il
b Tho instructions upon tho lea Of
' drunkenness. a applicable rc his
: case should he considered together
The jurv. we think We're fairly anf
: correctly instructed unun III; noin'
5 Of law.
T lPcoplc '. Leonard 49, \. Y 3G':
Is State Y. Hawkins. % Wash. -SG; s:
i Fac. 25S; Wilson V. State. 50 \. ], /
e III: HON. y. People 1t L. 5. e32
II Booher state 4ob Ind. AZ: 81 /.
l. Il. y. 39I: state Y. Thompson. l. Ne
II lo1. See also: - Cyc. go; Mccain
on CT. Law. Sec. 1922
ct S The refusal Of tho court to Civ
is certain requested instructions upoI
re the law OF manslaushter was not e.
4 ror, as there was no evidence tenGin
4 to reduce the offense 10 the grad
u of manslaughte r.
i Estate V Donovan. 10 New. So
Z State Y. Mi4Iain, ) New. 400; Pirhle ,
=, State. Hump tTenn) 500; State '
~ ,.eaver 80 Or. 413.)
II, g. \ number OF instruction re
az quested by defendants were refuse
40 by the court, either upon the groun
r. that they were inapplicable TO tn
&c case, or that they were covered b
10 instructions already given. A caref
as examination of l--eSe requested in
On struCtions convinces us that the coul
he did not err in their refusal.
Sc. t~,a1e V. Buralli, - New. "a Stat
Of V. Maher, % New. 1861
,h 10. It is cOntended that the il