Clair v. People

Decision Date09 April 1886
Citation10 P. 799,9 Colo. 122
PartiesCLAIR and others v. PEOPLE.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Error to district court, Clear Creek county.

Tilford & Gilmore and R. S. Morrison, for plaintiffs in error.

T H. Thomas, Atty. Gen., for the People.

HELM J.

Plaintiffs in error, being lessees of a mine, were tried and convicted of removing and concealing ore therefrom with intent to defraud the owner thereof. The prosecution took place under section 2513 of the General Statutes. The evidence upon which the conviction rests is not contained in the abstract before us, but counsel agree that it was 'wholly circumstantial.' Two assignments of error are pressed for consideration.

One of the instructions given on behalf of the state contained inter alia, the following:

'* * * That the rule requiring the jury to be satisfied of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to warrant a conviction, does not require that the jury should be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of each link in the chain of circumstances relied upon to establish the defendant's guilt. * * *'

The proposition which the court doubtless intended to announce is that it was not necessary for the state to have proven beyond a reasonable doubt every circumstance offered in evidence, and tending to establish the ultimate facts or circumstances on which a conviction depended. This would have been, in our judgment, good law. But while such was the purpose which the court sought to accomplish, it is exceedingly doubtful if the language employed did not mislead the jury. The metaphor used is inaccurate, and liable to misconstruction. It is incorrect to speak of a body of circumstantial evidence as a chain, and allude to the different circumstances as the links constituting such chain; for a chain cannot be stronger than its weakest link, and if one link fails, the chain is broken. This figure of speech may perhaps be correctly applied to the ultimate and essential facts necessary to conviction in criminal cases, since if one be omitted, or be not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, an acquittal must follow. It is not true, however, that each and every of the minor circumstances introduced to sustain these ultimate facts must be proven with the same degree of certainty. Some of these circumstances may fail of proof altogether, and be discarded from consideration by the jury, yet the ultimate fact to establish which they were presented may be shown beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence in cases similar to the one before us has been more aptly likened to a cable. One, two, or a half dozen strands may part, yet the cable still remain so strong that there is scarcely a possibility of its breaking. But the word 'circumstance' and the word 'fact' are frequently used interchangeably. In 1 Bouv. Dict. 569, they are given as synonyms, and instances sometimes arise when it would puzzle a professional philologist to tell which of the two words would more accurately characterize a given 'action' or 'thing done.' In cases where the conviction depends upon circumstantial evidence, it often happens that one or more of the ultimate or essential matters may very appropriately be called 'circumstances,' and such matters, whether spoken of as circumstances or as facts, must be established by the state beyond a reasonable doubt. 1 Starkie, Ev. 501; Com. v. Webster, 5 Cush. 295.

The court in the instructions before us could not have referred to the latter class of cicumstances, yet the danger is that the jury so understood him. They may not have distinguished between the minor circumstances and the ultimate circumstances as facts of the case. Since the circumstances mentioned in the charge are spoken of as 'links in a chain,' and designated as those 'relied upon to establish defendant's guilt,' it is not at all improbable that the jury regarded them as being-- First, that defendants were lessees of the mine; second, that Ellen Olds was the owner thereof; and, third, that the ore was taken with intent to defraud such owner,--each of which propositions must, under the statute, have been established beyond reasonable doubt. It is true, in a sense, that every circumstance, however trivial, offered by the state in evidence, is relied upon; but it is true, in a broader sense, that the state relies upon the ultimate facts or circumstances, the establishment of which is absolutely essential to conviction. We deem it quite as reasonable to suppose that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the language used as that they comprehended its appropriate meaning and application. For this reason the judgment must be reversed.

It is no answer that other portions of the charge, and even other parts of the same instruction, stated correctly the law upon the subject of reasonable doubt. Where the charge in a criminal case contains in one part an important correct legal proposition, and in another an incorrect and conflicting proposition upon the same subject, the subject referred to being material to conviction, it cannot be said that the error is avoided; for it is impossible to know upon...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 cases
  • Rhinehart v. Denver & R.G.R. Co.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • 3 Abril 1916
    ...thus expressed in the title, are germane.' Other cases in which the reasoning sustains our conclusion in this respect are: Clare v. People, 9 Colo. 122, 10 P. 799; v. Redman, 10 Colo. 297, 15 P. 397; Edwards v. D. & R. G. R. R. Co., 13 Colo. 59, 21 P. 1011; In re Breene, 14 Colo. 401, 24 P.......
  • In re Fourth Judicial District
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 24 Abril 1893
    ...33 Mich. 279; People v. Bradley, 36 Mich. 447; Continental Co. v. Phelps, 47 Mich. 299; Golden v. Canal Co., 8 Colo., 144; Clare v. People, 9 Colo., 122; Dallas v. Redman, 10 Colo. 297; Ex parte Liddell, Cal. 633; Phillips v. Bridge Co., 2 Met. (Ky.), 219; Johnson v. Higgins, 3 Met. (Ky.), ......
  • Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Bradbury
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 8 Marzo 1902
    ...district act are but different methods of accomplishing the same end. (Golden Canal Co. v. Bright, 8 Colo. 144, 6 P. 142; Clare v. People, 9 Colo. 122, 10 P. 799.) In the following cases the irrigation district law California, known as the "Wright Law," has been held to be constitutional by......
  • State v. Bond
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 19 Junio 1906
    ...Instructions to Juries, 2d ed., sec. 27, and cases cited; Mackey v. People, 2 Colo. 13; People v. Campbell, 30 Cal. 312; Clair v. People, 9 Colo. 122, 10 P. 799.) And must affirmatively appear that an error in a charge did not prejudice defendant, or it is cause for reversal. J. J. Guheen, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT