Flanders v. State
| Citation | 156 P. 39,24 Wyo. 81 |
| Decision Date | 20 March 1916 |
| Docket Number | 842 |
| Parties | FLANDERS v. STATE |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming |
Original Opinion of March 20, 1916, Reported at: 24 Wyo. 81.
Rehearing denied.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
Counsel for plaintiff in error have filed a petition for a rehearing in this case, and in their brief in support thereof have again urged that certain instructions given to the jury were erroneous and prejudicial to the defendant below, and that we were in error in not so holding. The case, on the former hearing, was very fully and ably presented to this court both in an elaborate brief and in oral argument covering all of the questions upon which a rehearing is asked We gave to the case that careful and full consideration its gravity demanded, both individually and in our consultations, and arrived at the conclusion stated in the opinion handed down. We have again given careful consideration to the arguments of counsel contained in their very earnest and respectful application for further hearing; but we are still of the opinion that the defendant had a fair and impartial trial and that he was not prejudiced by the instructions complained of. We think the case is distinguishable from Palmer v State, 9 Wyo. 40, 59 P. 793, 87 Am. St. Rep. 910. In that case there was a clear and direct conflict in the instructions. In this case it is only by selecting a sentence or part of a sentence in the instructions and giving to it a construction which it might bear if standing alone, but which could not be reasonably given to it when the instructions are considered as a whole, that any conflict is made apparent. We have endeavored to the best of our ability to place that construction upon the instructions which we believe an impartial jury of reasonable men would give to them, and as we believe they would be understood and were in fact understood by the jury in this case. The trial court so clearly and so frequently in its instructions told the jury in unmistakable language that the burden of proving the sanity of the defendant by competent evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt rested upon the state, that we are convinced that the jury could not have been and was not misled by the other statements in the instructions which are complained of. Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing and the brief in its support we are convinced that our conclusions as announced in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krucheck v. State
...L.Ed.2d 368 (1973). Accord, Scheikofsky v. State, supra, 636 P.2d 1107; Loy v. State, 26 Wyo. 381, 185 P. 796 (1919); Flanders v. State, 24 Wyo. 81, 156 P. 1121 (1916); Roberts v. State, 11 Wyo. 66, 70 P. 803 (1902).7 Instruction No. 1, in pertinent part:"You are the exclusive triers of the......
-
State v. Carroll
...... attorney to ask improper questions of witness Daniels in an. attempt to disparage and prejudice the defendant before the. jury. Error was committed in the reception and rejection of. other evidence and in giving instructions 1 and 3, and the. rulings on certain motions of defendant. Flanders v. State, 24 Wyo. 81. The defendant did not have a fair and. impartial trial and the conviction was obtained without due. process of law, in violation of the provisions of our. constitution. Attorneys for the prosecution were guilty of. misconduct, in questioning defendant with reference to ......
-
State v. Flory
...instructions considered together fairly state the law, it is sufficient. Dalzell v. State, 7 Wyo. 450; Loy v. State, 26 Wyo. 381; Flanders v. State, 24 Wyo. 81; Downing v. State, 11 Wyo. 86; Ross State, 8 Wyo. 351; State v. Garth, (Mo.) 65 S.W. 275. Defendant committed an assault upon decea......
-
State v. Lantzer
...of number 19, had to do with the sanity of the defendant. All of said instructions were proper and fairly stated the law. Flanders v. State, 24 Wyo. 81; State Thomas, 151 N.W. 842. Instruction numbered 17 directed the jury to look at all the facts and circumstances in evidence, relating to ......