Palmerston v. Territory

• Decision Date: 05 February 1890
• Citation: 23 P. 73,3 Wyo. 333
• Parties: PALMERSTON v. TERRITORY
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

23 P. 73

3 Wyo. 333

PALMERSTON v. TERRITORY

Supreme Court of Wyoming

February 5, 1890

Error to district court, Albany county.

One Palmerston was convicted of burglary, and brings error. Reversed.

Judgment reversed and case remanded.

John Charles Thompson, for plaintiff in error.

Atty Gen. Donzelmann, for the Territory.

CORN J.

OPINION

CORN J.

Plaintiff in error was tried at the March term, 1889, of the Albany county district court, upon an indictment for burglary, found guilty, and sentenced to the penitentiary. He brings the case to this court by petition in error.

Among other errors assigned in the motion for a new trial, it is alleged that the court erred in giving to the jury the following instruction, over the objection of the defendant: "The 'reasonable doubt' which entitles an accused to acquittal is a doubt of guilt reasonably arising from all the evidence in the case. It does not mean a doubt arising from mere caprice or groundless conjecture. The proof is to be deemed sufficient when the evidence is sufficient to impress the judgment of ordinarily prudent men with a conviction on which they would act in an important affair of their own." The court, in another part of the charge, instructed the jury that "the defendant is presumed to be innocent of the offense charged; and, unless you believe that he has been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be guilty, you should acquit him." The instruction complained of is an explanation of the instruction last referred to, and a definition of the character or degree of certainty which must exist in the minds of the jury to justify a conviction, and is the only instruction upon the subject.

What is a proper definition of a "reasonable doubt" is a question which has been much discussed by law-writers, and in the decisions of the courts; and a correct statement of the principle is not by any means confined to one form of words. But what an instruction must contain to correctly state the principle seems to be quite well settled. We do not think the instruction in question correctly states the law. The jury are instructed that "the proof is deemed sufficient when the evidence is sufficient to impress the judgment of ordinarily prudent men with a conviction on which they would act in an important affair of their own." Now, it is plain that not only ordinarily prudent men, but men of the highest prudence and sagacity, often do and must choose between two lines of conduct, and act in...