Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1908-01-31


that fact in Weighing his testimony:
and also that If they found that any
witness had deliberately testified fal,1-
", they Were at liberty to disregard
his testimony entirely
EVELYN'S AFFIDAVIT.
You will recollect that the affidavit
or Evelyn Nesbit was not received In
evidence as affording truth or either
falsity of the statements therein con-
tanned" said he, but solely for the
purpose of seeking to establish tho
fact that the witness had made state
ments under oath contradictory Of or
inconsistent with, those made by nor
at this trial.
And If you find that contradictory
or inconsistent statements were ac-
tually made by her or by any other
witness, as to matters actually involy-
ed in the main issue herein as testi-
fled to. you may take that into con-
sideration in arriving at a conclusion
as to the credihility Of such witness
or witnesses. But contradictory or IN
consistent statements as to trivial or
collateral matters are not to L. con-
sidered by YOU as affecting the cred
ibility of a witness
DEGREES OF HOMICIDE.
The various degrees Of homicide were
defined and the justice devoted much
time to calculating the legal meaning
of the words 'delibera ton and pre-
meditation" These words, he said,
imply the capacity al the time of the
crime to think and reflect and by the
use of these powers 10 refrain from
doing a wrongful act. He said that in
the consideration of deliheration, and
generalization the jury might take into
account the acts of the defendant I'M
mediately preceding the shooting, his
acts on the roof garden and the incl
dents attending the shooting itself.
"A sane man. a voluntary agent act
ine. upon motives. must be presumed to
contemplate and intend the necessary
natural and probable consequence OF
his acts he continued. IF, therefore,
one voluntarily or wilfully does an
act which has a direct tendency 10 de-
stroy another'S life, the natural and
necessary conclusion is that he intend
ed to destroy life. You are not TO be
prejudiced by any testimony which re-
fleets upon the character of the detend-
ant. In the eye of the law, to murder
the vilest and most abject of the hui
man race IS as great crime as to
murder its greatest benefactor.
There is no testimony to contravert
the proof that Stanford White came to
his death as the result OF pistol shot
wound inflicted by the defendant. The
defendant under plea of not guilty
has entered a specification that at the
time of the occurrence in question, he
was insane and that therefore under
the law is not responsible for his acts
AT the time in question.
DEFENSE OF INSANITY.
where the defense IS insanity and
the evidence IL given tending TO estao-
a.. oil al
presented whether the crime was com
mjtted by a person responsible for his
acts and the burden of establishing
sanity Is upon the prosecution; ana II
In the whole case any reasonable doupt
remains in your mind as 70 the de-
fendant's insanity, he is entitled TO the
benefit OF that doubt and TO be ac-
omitted upon that ground. The only
question for you to decide is whether
the defendant was or was not, insane
on the evening of June %, 1906, when
the shooting occurred. But the testl-
mony of family history OF prior life,
illness and conditions and or subse-
ouent mental ana physical state Is re-
ceived TO cast light upon the question
Of the defendants mental condition at
the time in question The prof or an
tecedent acts. is. like the proof Of he
rcditarv faint offered for the purpose
Of cpsfing further light upon his then
condition. the point nj issue by prov
ing his earlier and recurrent or con-
tinuous mental state.
EXPERTS TESTIMONY.
you will weigh the testimony OF the
experts as YOU do tho other testimony
I'm the case. You are not bound by II
unless you deem It worthy OF your Gre
dcnce.
ITO conclude. n you nre satisfied be-
yond reasonable doubt upon the proof
That at the time Of tho commission OF
the act charged I'm the indictment tho
defendant knew the nature and quality
nf the act ne WAS doing and that the
act was wrong, you viii find him guilty
OF such degree Of crime ne under the
law aa heretofore laid down the evil
dence has satisfied YOU ~ his guilt
bevond reasonable doubt, H. on tho
contrary, YOU are satFded upon tho
pronf that At the time of the commit
ment az the net charged I'm tho In
dictmcnt, the defendant was lahoring
under such q defect Of reason me- either
not n know the nature and quality Of
tho act. he was doing or not 10 know
the net was wrong or n you entertain
u reasonable doubt as 20 whether the
defendant WAS laborlnr under such
deficit ~ reason Hs not 40 know the
uuturc ana quality Of the net he was
doing or not 10 know The act was
wrong. You viii aoHu'f the defendant
,,, t,., oirpYtpd az Insanity