State v. Anis Murphy.
| Decision Date | 03 April 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 4644.,4644. |
| Citation | 93 W.Va. 477 |
| Parties | State v. Anis Murphy. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
1. Criminal Law Burden on State to Prove Every Essential Allegation of Indictment Beyond Reasonable Doubt.
In a criminal prosecution the burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every essential allegation of the indictment.(p. 479).
2. Same Instruction That Burden on State to Prove Essential Allegation of Indictment by Preponderance of Evidence Erroneous.
An instruction in a criminal case given on behalf of the state which tells the jury that the burden is on the state to prove the essential allegations of the indictment by a preponderance of the evidence is erroneous. (p. 479).
3. Same Oral Instruction, Over Objection of Accused, Touching Material Matters in Issue, Erroneous.
Under section 22, chapter 131, Barnes' Code, 1923, upon the trial of a criminal case, it is error to give, over the objection of the accused, an oral instruction touching material matters in issue. (p. 480).
Error to Circuit Court, Clay County.
Anis Murphy was convicted of a violation of the prohibition laws, and he brings error.
Reversed, and new trial awarded.
B. C. Eakle and E. P. Alderson, for plaintiff in error.
E. T. England, Attorney General, R. Dennis Steed, Assistant Attorney General, and W. G. Brown, State Prohibition Commissioner, for the State.
Defendant was convicted of a violation of the prohibition laws and assigns error.
The indictment is in the statutory form and is sufficient.
The only substantial error assigned is that the court misdirected the jury. No written instructions were offered, but the following shows the directions given by the court,
including the objections made by defendant's counsel:
"Gentlemen of the jury, there will be no written instructions in this case. As to the law in the case, the Court instructs you that the burden is on the State to prove all the essential allegations of the case by a preponderance of the evidence; and, of course, unless that is done, you should find for the defendant. Furthermore, gentlemen of the jury, the Court instructs you that you are to pass on the evidence in this case and determine what the facts are. If you believe the evidence of the witness for the State, and that the facts as he stated them are, in the main, true, then you may find the defendant guilty. On the other hand, if you believe the evidence of the defendant, Murphy, and that the facts as he stated them are true, you will find the defendant not guilty. The credibility of the witnesses is a question to be passed on by the jury it is not a question of how many witnesses testify for one side or the other, but the question is, who does the jury believe? What does the jury think in the case? If you think that Anis Murphy on the occasion referred to had in his possession and delivered to any party down at the Midlothian Jewell store intoxicating liquor, it is your duty to find the defendant guilty; otherwise, find him not guilty.
Counsel for the defendant objected to the form of the foregoing instruction.
Mr. Eakle: Particularly, you instructed them if they believe from the statement of the prosecuting witness, 'in the main.' I think that is incorrect. And you also instructed the jury that if they believe from a preponderance of the evidence that the sale was made they should convict.
The Court: You understand, gentlemen of the jury, the burden is on the State to prove the essential allegations of the indictment by a preponderance of the evidence; and the one question before you is, whether or not intoxicating liquor was on that occasion delivered by the defendant Murphy to any of the parties, as testified to, at Midlothian Jewell store.
Mr. Eakle: Defendant, by counsel, again renews his objections to this instruction.
Objection overruled, and the defendant excepted."
The jury were clearly misdirected. Before they could find the defendant guilty, they must believe him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and a mere preponderance of evidence is not sufficient. The state would justify the instruction on two grounds:: First, because the instruction to the effect given, was invited by defendant's counsel; and second,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Huffman
...136 W.Va. 239, 67 S.E.2d 326; State v. Scurlock, 99 W.Va. 629, 130 S.E. 263; State v. Roush, 95 W.Va. 132, 120 S.E. 304; State v. Murphy, 93 W.Va. 477, 117 S.E. 147; State v. McHenry, 93 W.Va. 396, 117 S.E. 143; State v. Parsons, 39 W.Va. 464, 19 S.E. As the evidence does not show beyond a ......
-
Raines v. Faulkner
...Court has held that it is error to give, over objections, an oral instruction touching upon material matters in issue. State v. Murphy, 93 W. Va. 477, 117 S. E. 147. Moreover, such error is ground for reversal, even though the instruction be correct as a matter of law; and its prejudicial e......
-
Raines v. Faulkner
...Court has held that it is error to give, over objections, an oral instruction touching upon material matters in issue. State v. Murphy, 93 W.Va. 477, 117 S.E. 147. Moreover, such error is ground for reversal, even though instruction be correct as a matter of law; and its prejudicial effect ......
-
State Of West Va. v. Cutlip
...63 S. E. 402. It is error to give, over the objection of the accused, an oral instruction concerning any material matter. State v. Murphy, 93 W. Va. 477, 117 S. E. 147. This Court has also held that such rule of practice must be strictly followed. State v. Willey, 97 W. Va. 253, 261, 125 S.......