The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-09-08

able doubt and this presumption of
Innocence goes with the accused
through the entire case. and applies
having read all OF the evidence in this
case the jury have a reasonable doubt
of the guilt OF the accused upon the
whole case, OF as to any fact essen
tial to prove the charge made against
him in the Indictment, it is tncir duty
10 give the prisoner the benefit of the
doubt, and lind him not guilty.
4. a reasonable doubt, III the mean
ing of the law, is such a doubt as
would cause a reasonable and prudent
man, in the Sraver and more import
ant affairs OF lie, to pause and hest
tate before acting upon the truth of
the matter charged or alleged. 1t
must be serious and substantial. and
teral to the case and not TO those
that are immaterial and unessential.
s. Upon the trial of this case, II
reasonable doubt of any fact necessary
as charged in the indictment be raised
by the evidence. or lack of evidence.
such doubt IS decisive. and the jury
must acquit the accused (since YER
dict of not guilty means no more
than that the guilt OF the accused has
not been established in the precise.
specific and narrow form prescribed
by law'D.
For the Accused.
9. If, upon the whole evidence in
! the case, there is any reasonable ny
( pothesis consistent with the innocence
! OF the accused the jury must find him
/ not guilty.
! 10. Circumstantial evidence. IL 1t be
, of such weight and character as TO
( that the accused is guilty. is entitled
/ to the same credit as direct and posi-
! tive testimony.
F! But It must always be scanned with
! great caution, and can never JUSTIFY
! verdict of guilty, especially in Il case
| where the penalty may be death, unless
the circumstances proved are SO nu-
/ merous and so weighty as to force a
| fair and unprejudiccd mind to Il moral
/ conviction of the guilt of the accused
! beyond any reasonable doubt. And un.
! less the jury believe that each and
| every circumstance essential to convict
| has been made out and established be-
| yond reasonable doubt such evidence
| is not sufficient to support a verdict
| of conviction
CircumstantinI Evidence.
/ II. Where a conviction for GRIM
inal offcnse is to rest upon circum-
stantial evidence alone, the Common
wealth must not only show, by a pre-
! ponderance of evidence that the al
, legged facts and circumstances are true.
! but they must 'be such facts and cir
cumstances as are absolutely inSom-
| thesis. with the innocence of the ac-
cused. and incapable of explanation.
upon any reasonable hypothesis. other
| than that of the guilt OF the accused.
And In such cases II is not enough
| that all the circumstances proved are
consistent with and point 20 the de-
PENDANTS. guilt. To authorize con-
vjction the circumstances essential TO
! conviction must not only ell be In
harmony with the guilt of che accused.
| but they must be of such character
| that they cannot reasonably IL; true,
in the ordinary nature of things. and
J the defendant be innocent
The circumstances should not only
be consistent with the prisoners guilt,
h,,t mn. he i- q n
other rational conclusion, or reason
able hypothesis of innocence. and such
as TO leave no reasonable doubt in the
minds OF the jury of the defendants
guilt.
IL. Where tho proof OF guilt rests
upon circumstantial evidence alone for
a conviction. the jury must be salts
fed beyond reasonable doubt that
the crime has been committed by some
one, in manner and form as charged
in the Indictment; and then they must
not only be satisfied that all the cir
cnmstances proved are consistent with
the defendants having committed the
act. but they must also be satisfied
that the facts arc such as to be incon-
sIstent with any other rational con
clusion than that the defendant is the
guilty person.
II there is any one single material
fact proved to the satisfaction of the
jury by a preponderance of evidence
which is inconsistent with the defend
ants guilt. this is sufficient to raise 9
reasonable doubt. and the jury snoulo
acnuit the defendant
In order to Justify the inference OF
legal guilt from circumstantial evil
dcnce the existence OF the inculpatory
facts must 'bc' absolutely incompatible
with the Innocence of the accused upon
any rational theory. and incapable OF
explanation upon any othe reasonable
hypothesis than that of his guilt.
Must Prove Every Fnct.
a. To warrant tho conviction Of q
person accused OF crime. every fact
necessary to establish his guilt must
he proved beyond a reasonable doubt
and especially Is this so II convic-
tion is to rest upon circumstanual
leVdcnce alone, It 1a not auficlent