Case Name: People v. Hill
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-09
Citations: 20 N.Y.S. 187
Docket Number: 
Parties: People v. Hill.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 20
Pages: 187–189

Head Matter:
People v. Hill.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.
September, 1892.)
1. Homicide—J ustification—Instructions.
An instruction requiring a justification of homicide to be established beyond & reasonable doubt is erroneous, nor is the error cured by a correct instruction elsewhere in the charge.
2. Criminal Law—Evidence at Former Trial—Death of Witness.
Evidence of a witness in a former trial of a criminal case is admissible in a second trial, on proof of the death of such witness.
Appeal from court of sessions, Delaware county.
Indictment against Samuel P. Hill for murder in the second degree. Judgment of conviction, from which, and an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed.
It appears, by the statement of facts contained in the appellant’s brief, that he was indicted by the grand jury of Delaware county for murder in the second degree, for having killed one Robert Peasley on the 10th day of September, 1886, at the town of Sidney, in that county. To this indictment the defendant pleaded not guilty. His defense was justifiable homicide. He was subsequently tried at the Delaware sessions in March, 1887. The jury rendered a verdict of guilty of manslaughter in the second degree. The court thereupon sentenced the defendant to 10 years’ imprisonment in the state prison at Auburn. From the judgment of conviction the defendant appealed to the general term of the supreme court. The general term reversed the judgment, and granted a new trial. 3 N. Y. Supp. 564. The judgment of reversal was entered in Delaware county clerk’s office, January 8,1889. The people appealed from that judgment to the court of appeals, which affirmed the judgment of the general term. 23 N. E. Rep. 1143. Subsequently the action was sent to the oyer and terminer. The case was again tried, in the oyer and terminer, in September, 1890. The trial resulted in a verdict against the defendant of manslaughter in the second degree, and he was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison at Auburn for the term of five years and two months. On the last trial the defendant added to his plea of not guilty the further plea of the former acquittal. The record discloses that the defendant moved for a new trial upon all the grounds mentioned in section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and especially (1) upon the ground that the court had misdirected the jury in matters of law to which the defendant had excepted; (2) on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence; (3) on the ground that the verdict was clearly against the weight of evidence. This motion was denied. From the judgment and the order denying the motion for a new trial the appellant appealed to this court.
Argued before Hardin, P. J., and Martin and Merwin, JJ.
James R. Baumes, for appellant. John P. Grant, for respondent.

Opinion:
Martin, J.
The material issue in this case was whether the defendant killed Robert Peasley under such circumstances as to constitute a crime, or whether such killing was justifiable. That being the principal issue in the case, the court charged: "If you shall believe that the defendant was justified in this attack, and I mean by that if you shall tie convinced by the evidence beyond reasonable doubt that he was justified in it, then your verdict shall be, 'FTot guilty.' " Thus the court, in effect, instructed the jury, not only that the defendant must justify his attack, thereby casting the burden of proof upon him, but that he must bear such burden to the extent of establishing such justification beyond a reasonable doubt. Manifestly, this was error. Stokes v. People, 53 N. Y. 177; People v. Downs, 123 N. Y. 558, 25 N. E. Rep. 988; People v. Hill, (Sup.) 3 N. Y. Supp. 564; People v. Riordan, Id. 774, affirmed, 117 N. Y. 71, 22 N. E. Rep. 455. The charge being erroneous, we cannot say that the defendant was not possibly injured or prejudiced by the error, although the court correctly instructed the jury upon this question in other parts of the charge. Greene v. White, 37 N. Y. 405. For this error we think the judgment and order should be reversed,
Moreover, we are disposed to think that the trial court should have received the evidence of the witness Amasa B. Waters, taken on the former trial. That such evidence was admissible, if the proof of the death of the witness was sufficient, there can be no doubt. While it may be that the proof was insufficient to establish the fact of death in ah action where it was a direct issue, yet, as the question arose in this case incidentally or collaterally, we think the evidence was sufficient to have justified the court in admitting the former testimony of the witness. Judgment and order reversed, and the clerk directed to enter judgment and remit a copy thereof, with the return and decision of this court, to the clerk of Delaware county, pursuant to sections 547, 548, Code Grim. Proc.
Merwin, J., concurs.