Hopt v. People

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtGRAY
Citation26 L.Ed. 873,104 U.S. 631
PartiesHOPT v. PEOPLE
Decision Date01 October 1881

104 U.S. 631
104 U.S. 631
26 L.Ed. 873
HOPT
v.
PEOPLE.
October Term, 1881

ERROR to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. John R. McBride and Mr. J. G. Sutherland for the plaintiff in error.

The Solicitor-General, contra.

MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff in error was indicted, convicted, and sentenced for the crime of murder in the first degree in the District Court of the Third Judicial District of the Territory of Utah, and presented a bill of exceptions, which was allowed by the presiding judge, and from his judgment and sentence appealed to the Supreme Court of the Territory, and that court having affirmed and judgment and sentence, he sued out a writ of error from this court. Of the various errors assigned, we have found it necessary to consider two only.

Page 632

The Penal Code of Utah contains the following provisions: 'Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of wilful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, rape, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any other human being, other thah him who is killed; or perpetrated by any act greatly dangerous to the lives of others, and evidencing a depraved mind regardless of human life,—is murder in the first degree; and any other homicide, committed under such circumstances as would have constituted murder at common law, is murder in the second degree.' Sect. 89. 'Every person guilty of murder in the first degree shall suffer death, or, upon the recommendation of the jury, may be imprisoned at hard labor in the penitentiary for life, at the discretion of the court; and every person guilty of murder in the second degree shall be imprisoned at hard labor in the penitentiary for not less than five nor more than fifteen years.' Sect. 90. Compiled Laws of Utah of 1876, pp. 585, 586.

By the Utah Code of Criminal Procedure, the charge of the judge to the jury at the trial 'must be reduced to writing before it is given, unless by the mutual consent of the parties it is given orally' (sect. 257, cl. 7); the jury, upon retiring for deliberation, may take with them the written instructions given (sect. 289); and 'when written charges have been presented, given, or refused, the questions presented in such charges need not be excepted to or embodied in a bill of exceptions, but the written charges or the report, with the indorsements showing the action of the court, form part of the record, and any error in the decision of the court thereon may be taken advantage of on appeal, in like manner as if presented in a bill of exceptions.' Sect. 315. Laws of Utah of 1878, pp. 115, 121, 126.

It appears by the bill of exceptions that evidence was introduced at the trial tending to show that the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the alleged homicide.

The defendant's fifth request for instructions, which was indorsed 'refused' by the judge, was as follows: 'Drunkenness

Page 633

is not an excuse for crime; but as n all cases where a jury find a defendant guilty of murder they have to determine the degree of crime, it becomes necessary for them to inquire as to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
98 practice notes
  • United States v. Williams, No. 12–3029
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • September 2, 2016
    ...was guilty of murder or manslaughter. As such, Williams was entitled to have the jury consider that evidence. See Hopt v. People , 104 U.S. 631, 633–34, 26 L.Ed. 873 (1881) ; 5 ORFIELD'S CRIMINAL PROCEDURE UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES § 30:23 (West 2016) (“Intent is a question of fact which must......
  • United States v. Brawner, No. 22714.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 23, 1972
    ...to conform to an objective standard.53 471 F.2d 999 This is plainly established by the defense of voluntary intoxication. In Hopt v. Utah, 104 U.S. 631, 634, 26 L.Ed. 873 (1881), the Court, after stating the familiar rule that voluntary intoxication is no excuse for crime, When a statute es......
  • U.S. v. Shepard, No. 73-1743
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • July 17, 1975
    ...may be tried anew upon the same indictment, or upon another indictment, for the same offence of which he had been convicted. Hopt v. Utah, 104 U.S. 631, (26 L.Ed. 873); 110 U.S. 574, 4 S.Ct. 202, (28 L.Ed. 262); 114 U.S. 488, 5 S.Ct. 972, (29 L.Ed. 183); 120 U.S. 430, 7 S.Ct. 614, (30 L.Ed.......
  • U.S. v. Sands, No. 91-7027
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • July 7, 1992
    ...Without question, voluntary intoxication can negate the existence of the premeditation required for first degree murder. Hopt v. Utah, 104 U.S. 631, 634, 26 L.Ed. 873 (1881); United States v. Slader, 791 F.2d 655, 658 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 964, 107 S.Ct. 464, 93 L.Ed.2d 409 (19......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
98 cases
  • United States v. Williams, No. 12–3029
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • September 2, 2016
    ...was guilty of murder or manslaughter. As such, Williams was entitled to have the jury consider that evidence. See Hopt v. People , 104 U.S. 631, 633–34, 26 L.Ed. 873 (1881) ; 5 ORFIELD'S CRIMINAL PROCEDURE UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES § 30:23 (West 2016) (“Intent is a question of fact which must......
  • United States v. Brawner, No. 22714.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 23, 1972
    ...to conform to an objective standard.53 471 F.2d 999 This is plainly established by the defense of voluntary intoxication. In Hopt v. Utah, 104 U.S. 631, 634, 26 L.Ed. 873 (1881), the Court, after stating the familiar rule that voluntary intoxication is no excuse for crime, When a statute es......
  • U.S. v. Shepard, No. 73-1743
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • July 17, 1975
    ...may be tried anew upon the same indictment, or upon another indictment, for the same offence of which he had been convicted. Hopt v. Utah, 104 U.S. 631, (26 L.Ed. 873); 110 U.S. 574, 4 S.Ct. 202, (28 L.Ed. 262); 114 U.S. 488, 5 S.Ct. 972, (29 L.Ed. 183); 120 U.S. 430, 7 S.Ct. 614, (30 L.Ed.......
  • U.S. v. Sands, No. 91-7027
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • July 7, 1992
    ...Without question, voluntary intoxication can negate the existence of the premeditation required for first degree murder. Hopt v. Utah, 104 U.S. 631, 634, 26 L.Ed. 873 (1881); United States v. Slader, 791 F.2d 655, 658 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 964, 107 S.Ct. 464, 93 L.Ed.2d 409 (19......
  • 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