Bisbee daily review., 1920-04-29
NECESSITY IF DEPORTATION
 AND QUESTION OF FORCE ARE TODEC|DE CASE IF WOOT TON
Assistant County Attorney Roark Opens Arguments for Prosecution Tombstone; Judge Charges Jury That Verdict Must Be Acquittal If Removal of l. w.
 w. Was Necessary Prevent Calamity

The questions for the jury, there fore, are these:
 "First-Was Brown foreibly car
 ried from this county and state
 into the state of New Mexico, or
 did he go voluntarily?
 Second-If ne did not go Volun-
 tarly, but was forcibly taken Into
 New Mexico, was the act executed
 by reason Of the law of necessity?
 These are questions for the jury and for the jury alone to determine from the evidence.
 Every person charged with crime is presumed to be innocent until p-cTan guilty by evidence which satisfies the minds of the jury of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is always upon the state to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant and of every allegation necessary to make up the crime charged This burden never changes and the presumption of inno- cence remains with the defendant throughout the trial and until remov-
 
 of the jury.
 "The removal of a citizen from this state to another without establishing any claim under the laws of the Unit ed States, or of this state, that is, without process for that purpose is- sued pursuant to some law of the Unit ed States of this state, is presumably unlawful and presumptively constitutes the crime of kidnap1ng, provided the taking and carrying into another state was forcible. The burden is upon the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the taking of Brown from this county and state into the state of New Mexico was done forcibly and that Browns going was not voluntary, and if the jury entertains any reason able doubt on tha; subject the defend ant is entitled to the benefit of it and to an acquittal at their hands.
 "On the other hand, if they are sat isfied beyond reasonable doubt that the taking of Brown into the state of New Mexico, was forcible and not vol untary on his part, then it is the duty of the jury to find the defendant guilty of the crime charged, unless such act was executed under the rule Of necessity. There is no presumption that one who forcibly seiZes and car ries a person into another state acts under the law of necessity and when such a claim is made the burden is upon the one asserting it, but such bur den only goes to this extent, that he must produce such evidence as will raise in the minds of the jury req sonable doubt whether he did not act, under all the circumstances, in accord ance with the rule of necessity. II snc jury. after the consideration of all the evidence, entertains a reasonable doubt whether the defendant and I those acting with him were not jus tified in acting as they did under the i law of necessity their duty is always to give the defendant the benefit of such doubt and acquit him, but if they have no reasonable doubt they should return a verdict of guilty.
 'To justify the claim that an act is executed under the law of necessity it must also appear that there was no other available manner of averting the threatened peril and if the jury be- llieves that other and not unlawful means could have been reverted to by which the threatened peril could have been as well averted and that req sonablc man would. under all of the l fCONTINITED ON PAGE FOUR)