Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/87520/st-clair-vs-united-states
Timestamp: 2018-03-21 03:24:04
Document Index: 396683262

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 108', '§ 1083', '§ 914', '§ 5', '§ 1005', '§ 747', '§ 1151']

St Clair Vs United States - Citation 87520 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
St. Clair Vs. United States - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/87520
Decided On May-20-1894
Case Number 154 U.S. 134
Appellant St. Clair
st. clair v. united states - 154 u.s. 134 (1894) u.s. supreme court st. clair v. united states, 154 u.s. 134 (1894) st. clair v. united states no. 1062 submitted march 5, 1894 decided may 20, 1894 154 u.s. 134 error to the circuit court of the united states for the northern district of california syllabus an indictment for murder which charges that the offense was committed on board of an american vessel on the high seas, within the jurisdiction of the court and within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the united states, sufficiently avers the locality of the offense. an indictment which charges that a, b, and c, acting jointly, killed and murdered d, is sufficient to authorize the conviction of one,.....
St. Clair v. United States - 154 U.S. 134 (1894)
U.S. Supreme Court St. Clair v. United States, 154 U.S. 134 (1894)
Lovejoy v. United States, 128 U. S. 171 , 128 U. S. 173 .
This general subject was carefully considered in Lewis v. United States, 146 U. S. 370 , 146 U. S. 379 , and in Pointer v. United States, 151 U. S. 396 , 151 U. S. 407 , 151 U. S. 410 -411. Referring to section 800 of the Revised Statutes, and the Act of June 30, 1879, c. 52, 21 Stat. 43, 44, we said in the latter case:
IV. Exceptions were taken at different stages of the trial to the admission, against the objection of the accused, of evidence as to the acts, appearance, and declarations of Sparf and Hansen. These objections seem to rest upon the general ground that the indictment did not charge St. Clair, Sparf, and Hansen as co-conspirators. The evidence was not for that reason to be rejected. St. Clair, Sparf, and Hansen were charged jointly with having killed and murdered Fitzgerald. The acts, appearances, and declarations of either, if part of the res gestae, were admissible for the purpose of presenting to the jury an accurate view of the situation as it was at the time the alleged murder was committed. Circumstances attending a particular transaction under investigation by a jury, if so interwoven with each other and with the principal fact that they cannot well be separated without depriving the jury of proof that is essential in order to reach a just conclusion, are admissible in evidence. "These surrounding circumstances, constituting part of the res gestae, " Greenleaf says,
1 Greenleaf, 12th ed., § 108. See also 1 Bishop's Cr.Pro. §§ 1083-1086. "The res gestae, ” Wharton said,
As there was no exception taken to the action of the court in these particulars, the error alleged is not subject to review, Tucker v. United States, 151 U. S. 164 , 151 U. S. 170 , unless, as the accused contends, we are to be controlled in such matters by section 1176 of the Penal Code of California. That section provides:
These provisions of the Penal Code of California do not control the proceedings in the circuit court of the United States sitting in that state. What is necessary to be done in a circuit court, even in civil cases, in order that its action upon any particular question or matter may be reviewed or revised in this Court, depends upon the acts of Congress and the rules of practice which this Court recognizes as essential in the administration of justice. Such is the result of our decisions. Rev.Stat. § 914; Act June 1, 1872, c. 255, § 5; Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U. S. 426 ; Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Horst, 93 U. S. 291 ; Chateaugay Ore Co., Petitioner, 128 U. S. 544 , 128 U. S. 553 ; Southern Pacific Co. v. Denton,
146 U. S. 202 , 146 U. S. 208 ; Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 147 U. S. 337 , 147 U. S. 338 ; Lincoln v. Power, 151 U. S. 436 , 151 U. S. 442 . See also Logan v. United States, 144 U. S. 263 , 144 U. S. 303 .
This contention cannot be sustained. We said in Pointer's Case that, while the record of a criminal case must state what will affirmatively show the offense, the steps without which the sentence cannot be good, and the sentence itself, all parts of the record must be interpreted together, giving effect to every part if possible and supplying a deficiency in one part by what appears elsewhere in the record. 161 U. S. 151 U.S. 396, 151 U. S. 419 . The indictment contained but one charge -- that of murder. The accused was arraigned, and pleaded not guilty of that charge. And while the jury had the physical power to find him guilty of some lesser crime necessarily included in the one charged, or of an attempt to commit the offense so charged, if such attempt was a separate offense, the law will support the verdict with every fair intendment, and therefore will by construction supply the words "as charged in the indictment." The verdict of "Guilty" in this case will be interpreted as referring to the single offense specified in the indictment. 1 Bishop's Cr.Proc. § 1005 a , and authorities there cited; Wharton's Cr.Pl. & Pr. § 747; Bond v. People, 39 Ill. 26. And this principle has been incorporated into the statute law of some of the states, as in California, whose Penal Code declares that a general verdict, upon a plea of "Not guilty," of "Guilty" or "Not guilty" shall import a conviction or acquittal of the offense charged in the indictment. § 1151.