Ayer v. Territory of New Mexico
| Decision Date | 21 October 1912 |
| Docket Number | 3,654. |
| Parties | AYER v. TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
E. W Dobson and Neill B. Field, both of Albuquerque, N.M., for plaintiff in error.
Frank W. Clancy, of Albuquerque, N.M., for the Territory.
Before SANBORN and CARLAND, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAM M. MUNGER District Judge.
The writ of error in this case questions the judgment of the Supreme Court of New Mexico which affirmed a conviction of the defendant below of the crime of murder in the third degree.
It is assigned as error that the trial court charged the jury that 'a reasonable doubt is one for which a reason could be given based on the evidence or want of evidence in the case ' Because this instruction destroys the rule of reasonable doubt, substitutes for a reasonable doubt a demonstrable doubt, logically and conclusively sustained by the evidence or the want of it, and places too heavy a burden on the defendant, it is error. A discussion of the question here presented may be found in the opinion of this court in Pettine v. Territory of New Mexico, 201 F. 489, 119 C.C.A. . . ., which is handed down herewith. In the case at bar the Supreme Court of New Mexico conceded the existence of the error in the charge of the trial court, but declined to reverse the judgment of conviction on the ground that the error was not prejudicial because in its opinion the testimony of the defendant himself excluded the possibility of a reasonable doubt of his guilt. Territory v Ayer, 15 N.M. 581, 113 P. 604, 607. Two of the justices of that court, however, dissented from this conclusion on the ground that the question whether or not a part or all of the evidence overcame the presumption of the defendant's innocence in this case and established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was a question for the jury, and not for that court.
The legal presumption is that error produces prejudice, and it is only when it appears so clear as to be beyond doubt that the error challenged did not prejudice, and could not have prejudiced, the complaining party, that the rule that error without prejudice is no ground for reversal is applicable.
The evidence in this case, the fact that upon this evidence the jury acquitted the defendant of the crime of murder in the first degree, for which he was indicted and tried, and found him guilty of murder in the third degree only, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Pettine v. Territory of New Mexico
-
Schaffer v. United States, 14980.
...error. Owens v. United States, 9 Cir., 130 F. 279;5 Pettine v. Territory of New Mexico, 8 Cir., 201 F. 489, 496; Ayer v. Territory of New Mexico, 8 Cir., 201 F. 497, 498. Other courts have criticized such a charge but have held that it did not constitute reversible error. United States v. F......
-
United States v. Farina
...conclusions contrary to our own are those of the Eighth Circuit in Pettine v. Territory of New Mexico, 201 F. 489, and Ayer v. Territory of New Mexico, 201 F. 497, and of the Ninth Circuit in Owens v. United States, 130 F. 279. The Ninth Circuit decision, however, was afterwards distinguish......
-
United States v. Woods, 448.
...this point and the divergent view courts have taken see Pettine v. Territory of New Mexico (C. C. A.) 201 F. 489; Ayer v. Territory of New Mexico (C. C. A.) 201 F. 497; Owens v. United States (C. C. A.) 130 F. 279, where it has been held erroneous: and Griggs v. United States (C. C. A.) 158......