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


upon the fire. He was not seeking to
establish innocence crime, but HIS
effort was directed to avoiding Z CON
viction of murder in the FIRST degree.
by showing that he was in 4 drunken
condition at the time he Killed the |
deceased, and was ,-ierefore incapa- /
BILE Of tina: generalization which is |
an essential element of murder in !
the first degree. Evidence which |,
tended to Sow that Intoxicating =
Clcr had tho effect Of transforming
him from ? good boy to a dangerous
character, We think. could not have
prejudiced tho defense, but would
rather tend to strengthen it.
s. Counsel for Johnny assigns err
rcr i II the refusal OF the cnul;t TO
strike ont, uron the ground that it
was nearsay, the testimony of ar In
Ian witness called Captain Jim. who
testified upon The part Of the State,
to the effect that upon the night of
the killing the Two defendants were
at his camp, and that lbapah said in
the presence of 10 my, that Johnny
held the mans hands while Ibapah
ord OF this testimony will warrant a
| conclusion that it was hearsay. But,
| conceding that it was the error in
admitting it was harmless, for other
| witnesses testified to the sama con.
;rsa;ion. and Johnny, as a witness in
his own behalf. also ties. ed tc the
| same enec'.
Pe0pia \ MarSe;lcr 20 Cal So
1,-.
q, defense t. crime, the court ga-a
instructions Number e and y Of its
own motion Hnd defendants Request
| ID Instruction number ;, which in
{ s1ructions ga! - follows:
ID. II is = We'll settled rule Of law
| thai Grunl,prness IS no excuse for
the commission Of crime Temper
airy insa nifty, produced by intoXication
does no. destroy responsibility. when
e Darty.wh Pn sane and responsible
made himself voluntarily intoxicatei:
and drunkenness forms no defense
what YER - tho fact Of guilt for
when 1 crime is committed by + par
" while II tit Of intoXicajion, the
la-v VIII nor allow him t. avail MIN
! self Cf his own gross vice and mis-
c0nduc' to shelter himself from the
legal Consequences Of such crime
Evifnnco of ,,r,,r1,n,roc. co, o,1,- he
oo.,-idorol, ,1- VIC i,,,- .or tho MN,
,,,,-.,> -, a,t..,.,,,i,,;--;, l,,-r,.,l os ~,
,.,..,,o o,4 fn,. III. r,,,.nor, :, -,,,.
ho rocoivo, ,.,i.b or,a+ n,u+io,
-. IN Tins case + yea find tha
the defendants uHlawtuIly ana viii
- 'i'i - % al az ue
.t'N' ~ PC 50" w =
~ l'-','' A. - lii,'' !
-, ca" - ~ Nl!,t"S i''l''i' "1
,,I',' - ~ " &. ecu, y.
,'''-o III ~ Pc ''0- - III
l.. pIi pc '',V '''0I!' !, va liloi a.
-
=, ~ "i "e' u iiS >'o0ii" "V7iSS' Oh" /
determining the degree, any eNidenC
:. tending 10 show the mental status c
h the defendants Is proper Ter the con
;, slderatlon Of the jury. lie fact,
= 1t be fact. that the dcIandant
d were oluLA' ooeS hCt iehuer me az
# IN :a,'I an" IA .naC sGi.'e ~
n nv. az l1''7 o"' 80
-. '"i9 ~ '"o'o ~ %
e a. +la 90. d t,l 80 80
/ itared ar was committed in tho "a
~ rvine cur Of an intent 70 rob Pr
- sumptiyelv. every killing is mur,-e
III but so far as the degree is concerned
X no presumption arises from the ner
fact of killing. considered separate
n and apart from the circumstance
under which the killing occurred. TT
l question is one of fact to be dete
10 mined by the jury rom the evident
in the case, and it is not mere !
~ gal conclusion and drunkenness 2