Loy v. State
Decision Date | 30 December 1919 |
Docket Number | 963 |
Parties | LOY v. STATE |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
ERROR to District Court, Laramie County, HON. WILLIAM C. MENTZER Judge.
Charles V. Loy was tried and convicted of murder in the first degree and brings error. The material facts are stated in the opinion.
Affirmed.
Marion A. Kline, for plaintiff in error.
Defendant's rights were not properly protected at the trial; the jury was improperly instructed as to the law of self defense and of premeditated malice; the court erred in overruling the challenge to jurors; the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of murder in the first degree; errors amounting to a denial of justice will be reviewed even where objections were not made (Ohama v. State, 24 Wyo. 513, 12 Cyc 708); the court erred in admitting the dying declaration of deceased, which was a conclusion and not a statement of facts; the jury was not properly instructed on premeditated malice (Parker v. State, 24 Wyo. 500; Cirej v State, 24 Wyo. 507; Ross v. State, 8 Wyo. 351); the instruction on self-defense was erroneous (State v. Yokum, 11 S.D. 544, 79 N.W. 835; McDonall v. People (Ill.) 48 N.E. 36); the giving of erroneous instructions was not cured by giving correct ones (State v. Rolla, 55 P. 525; State v. Pell, 59 P. 174; State v. Singleton, 74 P. 243; Palmer v. State, 9 Wyo. 40, 59 P. 796); the court erred in overruling the challenge to jurors for cause (6207 C. S.; Sullins v. State, 79 Ark. 127); the ruling was prejudicial since defendant had exhausted all peremptory challenges before the jury was complete (State v. Beatty, 45 Kan. 492; 25 P. 899; State v. Crofford, 96 N.W. 899); the evidence was insufficient to sustain first degree murder (Parker v. State, supra).
W. L. Walls, Attorney General, and T. Paul Wilcox, Deputy Attorney General, for defendant in error.
Lack of preparation or alleged incompetency of defendant's counsel is not grounds for a new trial except in cases of actual prejudice (12 Cyc. 708; Darby v. State, 79 Ga. 63; State v. Currans, 46 Kans. 750; Hudson v. State, 76 Ga. 727; State v. Dreher, 137 Mo. 11; State v. Benge, 61 Iowa 648); the instructions on premeditation are supported by authority (Parker v. State, 24 Wyo. 491); instructions are to be considered together (16 C. J. 1049); the instruction on the question of self defense fairly stated the subject (Parker v. State, 24 Wyo. 491); the overruling of challenges to jurors was not erroneous (Bryant v. State, 7 Wyo. 311; Carter v. Ter., 3 Wyo. 193); the verdict is fairly supported by the evidence.
The plaintiff in error, Charles V. Loy, was convicted in the District Court of Laramie County of the crime of murder in the first degree for the killing of one William Ashford, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for life. He brings the case to this court by proceedings in error.
The motion for a new trial, which was denied, assigns the following alleged errors, viz: The petition in error contains the same assignments of error and also the overruling of the motion for a new trial.
In addition to the alleged errors assigned in the motion for a new trial, counsel who represents the plaintiff in error in this court, but who did not represent him on the trial, has earnestly urged in his brief and oral argument, that although no objections to any of the instructions given by the court to the jury, or to the admission of certain testimony, or took exceptions thereto on the trial, nevertheless, an examination of the whole record will disclose such fundamental and prejudicial error, as will show that defendant below was deprived of a fair and impartial trial, and for that reason he should be granted a new trial. This court has in a few cases of murder in the first degree in which the jury did not add to its verdict "without capital punishment", and the death penalty was imposed, considered the entire record, although it did not disclose objections and exceptions, and from such examination arrived at the conclusion that it disclosed such fundamental and prejudicial errors as had deprived the defendant of that fair and impartial trial guaranteed to him by the constitution, and amounted to a denial of justice; and, so concluding, awarded a new trial (Parker v. State, 24 Wyo. 491, 161 P. 552; Ohama v. State, 24 Wyo. 513, 161 P. 558; Cirej v. State, 24 Wyo. 507, 161 P. 556). It is only in such extreme cases that the statutory rule of law that to secure a consideration in this court of alleged errors occurring upon the trial, timely objections must be made and exceptions taken.
In the present case exceptions were duly taken to the overruling of the challenges to the jurors Veta and Klein. It is sufficient to say that there is nothing disclosed in the testimony of the juror Veta on his voir dire which would disqualify him as a juror under the statute, and there was no error in overruling the challenge to him. The juror Klein testified on his voir dire that he knew the deceased but not personally. That he had read accounts of the homicide in the newspapers and had talked about it with others in whom he had confidence, and from what he had read and from what had been told him he had formed and expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. That he had heard others express an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of defendant. It is difficult to determine the state of mind of this man from his answers. When asked if he could enter upon the trial with his mind free from the impressions he had and let his mind be made up solely from the evidence, he answered, "I don't know whether I could or not." And when asked if he could lay aside any impression he had, he answered, "I don't believe I could;" but in answer to a question by the court he said he could try the case fairly and impartially. And again he stated that he would give the defendant the benefit of the presumption of innocence until it was overcome by competent evidence. Being further questioned by counsel for defendant, he was asked: Question by the court: By counsel for defendant:
The question presented by the challenge is one of mixed law and fact, and, as far as the facts are concerned, is to be decided by the court upon the evidence. Chief Justice Waite speaking for the court, in Reynolds v. U.S. 98 U.S. 145, 25 L.Ed. 244, in considering the question, said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Krucheck v. State
...Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 146-147, 94 S.Ct. 396 , 38 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 ......
- State v. Jurko
-
Jahnke v. State
...F.2d 376 (1973). See also Hopkinson v. State, supra; Collins v. State, Wyo., 589 P.2d 1283 (1979); Lopez v. State, supra; Loy v. State, 26 Wyo. 381, 185 P. 796 (1919); and Keffer v. State, 12 Wyo. 49, 73 P. 556 (1903). While in this case we can perceive no prejudice to the rights of the app......
-
Espy v. State
...the trial, timely objection must be made and exceptions taken, should not be departed from except in extreme cases. See Loy v. State, 26 Wyo. 381, 385, 185 P. 796; Omaha v. State, 24 Wyo. 513, 518, 161 P. 558. reasons for relaxing the rule in some cases, most of which are reviewed in McFetr......