The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-09-08


other reasonable hypothesis than that
of his guilt.
IS. To warrant the conviction OF a
person accused OF crime every tact
necessary 20 establish his guilt must
be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
ana especially is this so II convic-
ton Is 10 rest upon circumstantial
evidence alone. IL is not sufficient,
therefore. that the evidence creates
a suspicion or probability Of guilt, no
matter how strong. The accused Is
in such a case entitled To an acquit
tai unless the fact OF guilt Is proved
TO the actual exclusion of every rea-
sonable hypothesis If his innocence.
IA, The failure Of the esldenco TO
disclose any other criminal agent
than the accused is not clrcum-
stance which may be considered ny
the jury in determining whether or
not no Was guilty Of the crime where
with he is charged The prisoner IS
presumed to be innocent until his
guilt Is established, and he is not to
be prejudiced by the inability Of the
Commonwealt 10 point TO any other
criminal agent nor is he called upon
To Nindicate his own innocence by
naming the guilty person
10. While 1t is proper for the
Commonwea lth to show motive for
the commission of a murder il Is nor
an Indispensable element az the
crime, and ii is net bound TO be
proven. But IN this case where the
evidence is wholly circumstance!
with the exception OF the testimony
OF Paul Beattie as 10 the alleged con-
fession of the accused the absence
| Of evidence OF an inducive cause or
motive to commit the offense charged
II such evidence be lacking, Is Of it,
self strong presumption Of limo
cence.
When the evidence fails 10 show
any motive To commit the crime
charged, on the part of the accused,
thls Is q circumstance In favor of ms
innocence And, in this case If tn~
jury find. upon careful examination
Of all the evidence, that it falls to
show any motive ON the part of the
accused to commit the -crlme- -cnargeu
against him, then this is q circurn-
stance which the jury ought 10 con-
s'der In connection with all the other
evidence in the case in making up
their verdict
l6. The confessions of a prisoner
out OF court are a doubtful species
OF evidence. and should be acted
upon by the Jury with great caution,
+
confession has a motive for testify =
ing thereto. or If the facts brought
out IN the alleged confessions are fav-
orable or. advantageous 10 the wit
ness detailing. the confession. then the
jury ought not to convict upon such
confession alone. unless after "a care
ful examination of the same, and all
/ the circumstances under which il was
made they are satisfied beyond rea :
! sonehle doubt OF its tr@th and that
/ they may safely rely upon it.
I IL Evidence Of good character
should be considered by the jury in
! determining the question of malice.
! reconciliation and elaboration. and
may be of itself sufficient TO raise a
reasonable doubt of the existence Of
! these necessary elements of murder
/ In the first degree. and where such
/ reasonable doubt is raised by evil
I dence Of good character. II is con-
( elusive in favor of the prisoner and
| in that case you should find him not
! guilty.
| Is Evidence of good character, so
far as 1t relates TO the peaceahle and
: amiable disposition of the accused,
should be considered by the jury in
determining the question OF whether
he committed the crime OF violence
and cruelty and brutality charged
against him In the Indictment: and it
may be OF itself sufficient to raise
fl reasonable doubt or the eXistenc Q
OF malice and generalization, neces-
sary elements of the crime charged; :
| and where such reasonable doubt IL
raised by such evidence 1t IL conclu-
sive in favor Of the prisoner
~. Before tho jury can convict
the defendant in this case, 1t must
appear, from the evidence, beyond
reasonable doubt, that the defen-
dant, and not somebody else, COM
mitted the offense charged in the in
dictment. 1t Is not sufficient that the
evidence shows that the defendant
or somebody else committed the
crime, nor that the probabilities are
that the defendant and not somebody
else committed the crime unless
those probabilities are so strong as
| to remove all reasonable doubt as to
whether the defendant or someone
else Is the guilty party
IT. from consideration of all the
evidence in this case. the jury en-
! terrain reasonable doubt as to
whether the offense charged was COM
mitted by the defendant or by some
other person. the jury should acquiS
20. The jury have no right to dis
regard the testimony OF the defen-
dant on the ground alone that he il a
Observation-Disclosures aAds-eharx-tf WITH
the commission of n crime. The law
allows him to testify in his own be-
half. and the jury should fairly and
!mpartially consider his testimony to-
gether with all the other evidence In
the case.
Il. Upon the trial OF the criminal
case by jury. the law contemplates
the concurrence OF twelve minds In
the conclusion of guilt before a con
Wction can be had. Each individual
juror must be satisfied beyond
reasonable doubt OF the defendants
guilt before he can. under his oath.
consent 70 verdict of guilty Each
Juror should feel the responsibility
resting upon him a \ mem Der OF the