Childs v. State

• Decision Date: 16 March 1892
• Citation: 34 Neb. 236,51 N.W. 837
• Parties: CHILDS v. STATE.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

34 Neb. 236

51 N.W. 837

CHILDS

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

March 16, 1892.

Syllabus by the Court.

In a prosecution for grand larceny the court instructed the jury: “On the question of reasonable doubt the court instructs the jury that the term ‘reasonable doubt,’ as used in these instructions, means a doubt which has some good reason for it arising out of the evidence in the case; such a doubt as you are able to find a reason in the evidence for,” etc. Held erroneous, and cause for reversal of the judgment.

Error to district court, Gage county; APPELGET, Judge.

Prosecution against R. E. Childs for theft. Verdict of guilty, and judgment thereon. Defendant brings error. Reversed.A. Hardy, for plaintiff in error.

Geo. H. Hastings, Atty. Gen., for the State.

MAXWELL, C. J.

The plaintiff in error was tried in the district court of Gage county, upon an information charging him and one George Weisen with unlawfully and feloniously stealing and carrying away 18 sacks of the value of $3.60, and 41 bushels of flax-seed, of the value of $40.80. He was found guilty by the jury, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for one year and six months. The court instructed the jury as follows: “On the question of reasonable doubt the court instructs the jury that the term ‘reasonable doubt,’ as used in these instructions, means a doubt which has some good reason for it arising out of the evidence in the case; such a doubt as you are able to find in the evidence a reason for. It means such a doubt as would cause a prudent man to hesitate before accepting as true, and acting upon, any matters alleged or charged in the graver and more important affairs of life. As applied to evidence in criminal cases, it means an actual and substantial doubt, growing out of the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence in the case. It does not mean doubt which arises from some mere whim or vagary, or from a mere groundless surmise or guess; and, while the law requires you to be satisfied from the evidence of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it at the same time charges you not to go outside of the evidence to hunt up doubts upon which to acquit the defendant.” In Cowan v. State, 22 Neb. 520, 35 N. W. Rep. 405, an instruction like that under consideration was held erroneous. This decision was reaffirmed in Carr v. State, 23 Neb. 749, 37 N. W. Rep. 630, and is the law of this state. The instruction was clearly erroneous. The judgment of the...