The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1925-11-14

buL III ClOLIllIlS LtlOS0 CudISGu
with crime with the presumption of
innocence, the law does not con-
template that the guilty shall be
shielded from merited punishment.
It's object is to protect the innocent
as far as human agencies can, from
the effects of unjust verdicts.
"If any one of the material
allegations has not been so proved,
it would be your duty to acquit. If
all the material allegations of the in
dictment have been proved, it is
your duty to convict.
"To prove proposition beyond a
reasonable doubt, the evidence must
be such that it would convince a
prudent man of the truth of it to
such a degree Of certainty that he
would feel safe to act upon such
conviction without hesitation, in
matters Of the highest Importance
to his own dearest personal interests,
under circumstances where there
was no compulsion resting upon him
at all.
Each Acts for Self
each juror acts for himself in
coming to a conclusion and acts on
his own convictions. If any juror
after consulting and celebrating
with his fellows, should not be con-
WINGED beyond a reasonable doubt of
the defendants guilt, it would be his
duty to refuse to vote for a convic-
ton. And if on the other hand, any
juror convinced of the defendants
guilt, it would be his duty to re-
frain from voting for an acquittal.
But it is the duty of each juror to
consult and deliberate with his fell
low Jurors.
"The rule of the law touching
reasonable doubt is a practical rule
intended to guide jurors engaged in
the serious and important duty of
administering justice. There is moth
ing in it that is mysterious or fanci-
full. 1t does not furnish a shield for
those actually guilty whereby to
escape merited punishment. 1t does
not contemplate absolute or
mathematical certainty. Despite
every precaution that may be taken
to prevent it, there may be, in all
matters depending on human testi-
mony for proof, mere possibility of
error.
1.-THE third count of the indict-
ment charges the defendants with
having killed and murdered Madge
Oberholtzer in an attempt to COM
NIT rape on her. You would not be
warranted in finding the defendants,
or either of them guilty under said
third count unless the evidence has
established beyond all reasonable
doubt that the death of said Madge
OberholtZer was mediate or i'm
mediate result of such alleged at
tempt to commit rape on her if
any. And if you should have a
reasonable doubt that her death was
mediate or immediate result of such
alleged attempt to commit a rape
upon her, you could not convict said
defendants or either of them on said
third count"
1.-THE statute defining murder in
the first degree includes cases where
the homicide results from the
preparation or the attempt to
perpetrate certain felonies named,
viz: rape, arson, robbery and burg
larry. The statutory provision as to
the first degree is to make criminal
in that degree the murder resulting
from committing or attempting to
commit the particular felonies speci-
fled. No intent to kill and no de-
Iteration and generalization of
murder are necessary in such cases
as the implied malice involved in the
felonious intent is sufficient"
ITO authorize the conviction Of the
defendants FOR murder in the second
degree, the state must have proven
beyond a reasonable doubt all the
facts necessary to be proven to en-
title 1t to a conviction for murder in
the first degree, excepting that the
alleged killing of the deceased was
premeditated; generalization being
the only distinction between murder
in the first and second degree
10 authorize the conviction of the
defendants Of manslaughter the evil
dence must have shown beyond a
reasonable doubt that at the place
mentioned in the indictment the de.
PENDANTS killed the said deceased as
alleged In the indictment without
malice, express or implied, either
voluntarily, upon a sudden heat, or
involuntarily but in the commission
Of some unlawful act"
IF there is in the minds Of the
jury a reasonable doubt as to which
Of the different degrees Of felonious
homicide embodied in the indictment,
the defendants or either Of them are,
or, is guilty, if either, he or they,
as the case may be, must be con.
victed of the lowest degree only"
I'm order to entitle the State to a
conviction Of the defendants for
murder in the first degree, it must
have been proven, beyond a reason.
able doubt, that at the place men.
toned in the Indictment at some
time before the finding of the indict.
ment, the defendants did unlawfully
and purposely kill, or cause to be
killed, the deceased in the manner
alleged in at least one count Of the
indictment, and that such killing of
the deceased by the defendants, if
it was so done by them, was premedi-
tated and malicious, and in pursu.
ance of a purpose, previously formed
in the mind Of the defendants, and
deliberately considered and resolved
upon"
eff you find from all the evidence
in this cause that such evidence