People v. Woods
| Decision Date | 02 February 1888 |
| Citation | 2 Idaho 364,16 P. 551 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. WOODS |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
PRACTICE-PRESUMPTION-SUFFICIENCY OF INDICTMENT.-On appeal from a judgment in a criminal case, where no part of the evidence is brought to the supreme court by bill of exceptions, or otherwise, and the indictment is sufficient to support the judgment, this court will assume that the evidence was sufficient to warrant the verdict, and will further assume that the trial court's charge to the jury was pertinent to the facts proved on the trial.
(Syllabus by the court.)
APPEAL from District Court, Bingham County.
Affirmed.
No Counsel for Appellant.
R. Z. Pohnson, for the People.
No brief filed.
OPINION
The defendant was indicted, charged with the willful and deliberate murder of Sarah Woods. At the May, 1887, term of the district court for Bingham county a trial was had, and the defendant found guilty of murder in the first degree, and judgment rendered upon the verdict. From this judgment the defendant appealed.
In this court no appearance was made on behalf of the appellant, and on motion of the attorney general the case was submitted on the record. The transcript contains the indictment, intermediate orders, minutes of the trial, etc., but the evidence is not before us, and no exceptions appear to have been taken in the trial court. Under the rule, we might have affirmed the judgment without inquiry, but as the life of a human being was involved, we deemed it our duty to carefully examine the record brought here, and have done so.
On the trial the defendant had able counsel, and no question was there raised as to the sufficiency of the indictment. But we have here examined it, and find it entirely sufficient to support the judgment. The evidence not being before us, we must assume that it was sufficient to warrant the verdict rendered; and we must also assume that the court's charge to the jury was given with reference to the facts found.
We have found no error in the transcript, and the judgment is therefore affirmed. A certificate of the judgment here will be remitted to the court below, and said court is directed to make such order as may be necessary to carry its judgment into effect. Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ricks
...presume that the progress of the cause in the court below was regular and free from error. (17 C. J., sec. 3560, p. 214; People v. Woods, 2 Idaho 364, 16 P. 551; v. Williams, 2 Idaho 366, 16 P. 552; State v. Watkins, 7 Idaho 35, 59 P. 1106; State v. Suttles, 13 Idaho 88, 88 P. 238; State v.......
-
State v. Mcmahan
... ... Kester, Leo McCarty, Verner R. Clements and Cox & Ware for ... Appellant ... Only ... gross negligence constitutes a felony. ( People v ... Rosenheimer, (1913) 209 N.Y. 115, 102 N.E. 530, 531 at ... 533, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 161, 46 L. R. A., N. S., 977; State ... v. Lester, ... 1 P. 345; People v. Mooney, 2 Idaho 17, 2 P. 876; ... People v. Pierson, 2 Idaho 76, 3 P. 688; People ... v. Woods, 2 Idaho 364, 16 P. 551; People v ... Williams, 2 Idaho 366, 16 P. 552; Territory v ... Guthrie, 2 Idaho 432, 17 P. 39; Territory v ... ...
-
State v. Peck
... ... that the presumption arising from possession alone is ... completely removed by the good character alone of the ... defendant. (People v. Hurly, 60 Cal. 74, 44 Am. Rep ... 55.) The court erred in refusing to advise the jury to acquit ... the defendant on the ground of the ... (People v. Waters, 1 Idaho 560; People v ... O'Conner, 1 Idaho 759; People v. Woods, 2 ... Idaho 364, 16 P. 551; People v. Williams, 2 Idaho ... 366, 16 P. 552; State v. Hendel, 4 Idaho 88, 35 P ... 836; People v. Brown, 48 Cal ... ...
-
State v. Hunsaker
...that do not tend to deprive him of any substantial right should be disregarded, and cannot amount to reversible error. In People v. Woods, 2 Idaho 364, 16 P. 551, it is that on an appeal from a judgment in a criminal case, where no part of the evidence is presented by bill of exceptions or ......