Daily independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 188?-1915, 1911-12-20

which the guarded judgment of
reasonable man would ordinarily
make under like circumst ances.
The Court instructs the jury
that circustahtial evidence is legal
and competent in criminal cases,
and if it is of such a character az |
to exclude every reasonable |
hypothesis other than that the
defendats are guilty, il is entitled |
to the same fair and just con
sideration as direct testim ony.
The Court instructs the jury
that what is mean by circumstatial;I
evidence in criminal cases is the
proof of such facts or circum-
stances connected with or SUI
rounding the commission of the
crime charged as to tend to show
the guilt or innocence of the
party or parties charged; and if
these facts and circumstances are
sufficient TO satisfy the jury of the
gu lit of the defendants, beyond
reas enable doubt, then such
evidence is sufficient to authorize a
jury in finding a verdict of guilty
against them.
The jury are instructed, as
matter of law, that where a con-
viction for a criminal offense is
sought upon circustantial evil
dence, the state must not only show
that tine alleged facts and circum-
stances are true, but they must
be such facts and circumstances
as are incompatible. upon any
reasonable hypothesis, with the
innocence of the accused, and
incapable of explanation. upon
any reasonable hypothesis, other
than that Of the guilt of the &C.
cused. If the facts and circum-
stances relied upon are not all
consistent with each other and
with the guilt Of the accused and
inconsistent with any reasonable
theory of innocence. they are not
sufficient to authorize the jury to
find verdict of guilty.
In this case direct evidence as
well as circumstantial evidence
has been introduced. 1t is your
duty to consider all the evidence in
the case, both direct and circum-
stantial. If after giving proper
consideration to all the evidence,
you shall be convinced beyond a
reasons *ble doubt of the guilt Of
the defendants, it will be your
duty to render verdict Of guilty:
if not convinced. beyond reason
able doubt, it will be your du ty to
render a verdict of not guilty.
Whenever an act done by the
defendant in criminal action is
under, all the circumstances of
the case, capable of two reasonable
constructions, one OF which is con-
sistent with his innocence, and the
other tending to establish guilt, it
is tho duty Of the jury to put
upon the act the construction con.
sistent with innocence. IL any
reasonable view Of Ihe evidence
can be adopted which admits of q
reasonable doubt of the guilt Of
either Of the defenda nts, then, az
to such defendant. il is your duty
to sdopt such view and acquit.
1t is TIE law that in the trial Of
all indictments, complaints, and
other proceedings against persons
charged with the commission Of
crimes or offenses, the person so
charged shall, at his own request,
but not otherwise, be deemed COM
petant witness. No such person
can be compelled to testify. In
this case, which is a criminal
action the defendants have declined
to testify; but the Court specially
instructs you that no inference of
guilt is to be drawn against them
for that cause.
A witness is presumed to tell the
truth. This presumption, however,