People of Territory of Utah v. Berlin
Decision Date | 23 January 1894 |
Citation | 9 Utah 383,35 P. 498 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF UTAH, RESPONDENT, v. NELLIE BERLIN, APPELLANT |
APPEAL from an order denying a new trial and a judgment of the district court of the fourth district, Hon. James A. Miner judge. The following is a full statement of the record:
The indictment by apt words charged the larceny by Nellie Berlin from Lena Wright of $ 100. The bill of exceptions set forth the evidence on the trial as follows:
On the trial of said cause the people gave testimony tending to show the larceny of the $ 100 as set forth in the indictment and tending to sustain such charge, and the defendant introduced testimony in defense of the charge set forth in the indictment by the testimony of the defendant tending to show and prove that on and prior to the 19th day of February 1893, the prosecuting witness Lena Wright entered into an agreement with the defendant and one Gilson whereby the said Gilson and defendant were to poison and kill one Mrs. Morris of Ogden City, for which the prosecuting witness was to pay for said act of killing the sum of $ 100. The testimony of the defense tended to show that this agreement was entered into between the prosecuting witness Lena Wright and said defendant: that on the 19th day of February, 1893, the defendant and Gilson for the purpose of deceiving Lena Wright and obtaining the $ 100 caused to be published in one of the Ogden daily papers a statement to the effect that Mrs. Morris had died of heart disease.
The exception to the charge as given was general to the whole charge and pointed out no specific part; it was as follows "To the giving of the said instructions, and to the giving of each of them the defendant then and there excepted at the time as follows: We except to each and every one of the instructions given by the court to the jury."
No exception whatever appeared in the record to the refusal to give the instructions requested. They are therefore not inserted.
The whole charge of the court as given was as follows:
Then followed instructions upon the subject of reasonable doubt. The jury went out and then returned for further instructions and the whole charge was read over to them again.
Affirmed.
Messrs. Lessinger and Beckwith, for the appellant. No brief on file.
Mr. W. L. Maginnis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, for the respondent. No brief on file.
The defendant was convicted of grand larceny. The only question presented is whether or not the evidence justifies the verdict because the exception to the charge is wholly insufficient, On the trial the prosecution introduced evidence tending to prove that she stole $ 100 from Lena Wright, and the defendant introduced evidence tending to prove that she entered into a conspiracy with Lena Wright to kill one Mrs. Morris, for the consideration of $ 100, and that she caused a false statement to be published in a newspaper to the effect that Mrs. Morris had died of heart disease, which she showed to Mrs. Wright who relied upon the statement and paid her the $ 100 alleged to have been stolen. The prosecution introduced evidence tending to rebut this evidence offered by the defendant. The court charged the jury and the defendant excepted generally to the charge, but excepted to no particular part. And, although we notice the point because counsel have argued it in their briefs, and have overlooked the fact that the exception was not specific, we do not wish to be understood as saying that the charge can be reviewed on such an exception.
The jurors might have understood from one part of the charge without the qualification that followed, that they might find the defendant guilty of larceny, though Mrs. Wright paid her $ 100 intending to transfer both the possession and title, if such transfer was induced by her fraudulent representation and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Taylor
...12 P.2d 1078 (1932); Gibson v. State, supra, 328 P.2d 718 note 4; Riley v. State, 64 Okl.Cr. 183, 78 P.2d 712 (1938); People v. Berlin, 9 Utah 383, 35 P. 498 (1894); Lewis v. People, 109 Colo. 89, note 5, 123 P.2d 398, supra; State v. Smith, 2 Wash.2d 118, note 5, 98 P.2d 647, supra.7 Phelp......
-
People of Territory of Utah v. Hart
...refer to the charge which the court may give on its own motion. See, also, People v. Flahave, 58 Cal. 249. In the case of People v. Berlin, 9 Utah 383, 35 P. 498, wherein the facts are set out, it appears that a exception was taken to the entire charge of the court, but the particular part ......
-
A. C. Nelsen Auto Sales v. Turner, 47629
... ... O'Brien stated that he had some people in mind who might be interested. He suggested that Turner take the car ... 1456 ... In the case of State v. Joseph, 63 Utah 1, 221 P. 850, 851, the question involved was whether certain acts ... Berlin, 9 Utah 383, 35 P. 498, as follows: 'If the owner of personal property is ... ...
-
People of Territory of Utah v. Berlin
...the cause remanded to the court below for a new trial. For the former opinion of this court, per Zane, C. J. (Smith, J., dissenting), see 9 Utah 383. (35 P. Reversed and remanded. Messrs. Lessinger & Beckwith, for the appellant. Mr. W. L. Maginnis, Assistant U. S. Attorney, for respondent. ......