State v. Blue
| Citation | 37 S.W. 796,136 Mo. 41 |
| Parties | The State v. Blue, Appellant |
| Decision Date | 20 November 1896 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Audrain Circuit Court. -- Hon. E. M. Hughes, Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
Edmonston & Cullen for appellant.
(1) The court's instruction defining reasonable doubt to be "a substantial doubt growing out of and consistent with the evidence," is erroneous, and as the defendant offered no evidence in this case is peculiarly hurtful and should be held reversible error. The doubt may grow out of the evidence or the lack of evidence. The words "growing out of and consistent with the evidence" imply that the doubt must be such an one as is created or produced by proof. The definition is too narrow and excludes all reasonable doubt that may arise from the lack or want of evidence. The identical instruction has been condemned by this court in the first case cited below, and is contrary to a long line of approved precedents. State v. Bobbst, 131 Mo. 328; Densmore v. State, 67 Ind. 306; State v Nueslein, 25 Mo. 111; State v. Wells, 111 Mo 533; State v. Turner, 110 Mo. 197; State v Robinson, 117 Mo. 649; State v. Talmage, 107 Mo. 349; State v. Owens, 80 Mo. 73; State v. Evans, 55 Mo. 461. (2) It was error to refuse defendant's instruction that there was no evidence in the case tending to show that he had possession of that part of the property found in the mine. (3) That part of the instruction on recent possession, which declares the defendant guilty "unless such possession is satisfactorily explained by the evidence consistent with his innocence" is erroneous in this, it throws upon defendant the burden of establishing his innocence to the satisfaction of the jury. The defendant was entitled to an acquittal if his explanation was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt. There is a wide difference between proving a fact to the satisfaction of a jury, and introducing sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt. State v. Kirk Patrick, 72 Iowa 500, cases cited; State v. Emerson, 48 Iowa 174; State v. Manly, 74 Iowa 561; Hall v. State, 8 Ind. 439; Hud v. State, 25 Wis. 421. (4) The doctrine of the above cases is in line with the general doctrine in Missouri. It is error to require self-defense or alibi to be established to the reasonable satisfaction of the jury. State v. Wingo, 66 Mo. 181; State v. Hill, 69 Mo. 451; State v. Taylor, 118 Mo. 153, and authorities cited.
R. F. Walker, attorney general, and J. G. Trimble for the state.
The defendant, indicted in the circuit court of Audrain county in connection with one Wilbur Washington, for burglary in the second degree and larceny, was, on a separate trial awarded him, convicted of burglary as charged, and his punishment fixed at three years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. Washington had prior to the trial of defendant, been tried and acquitted. The case is before us on defendant's appeal.
The facts are about as follow:
On the twenty-third day of March, 1895, a building belonging to E. B. Norris in Mexico, Missouri, was burglarized, and two pairs of pants, two vests, one coat and four pairs of hose stolen therefrom. Defendant had been in the employ of Norris some time before the burglary. The building was entered through the door which was fastened by a hook and staple, the staple having been removed, and the door opened. Thereafter, during the same month, a bundle of clothing wrapped up in a coat was found in an abandoned coal shaft in the outskirts of said city. The person who found the bundle did not disturb it, but notified the street commissioner, who together with himself and a policeman went to the coal shaft about 4 o'clock the same evening and got the bundle, which then contained two pairs of hose, one pair of lady's drawers, one coat, one pair of pants and two vests. Some days after the burglary defendant sold to Anna Gay a pair of pants and two pairs of hose which were identified by Norris and Mrs. Norris, as a portion of the property taken from the burglarized building and as their property.
Anna Gay testified that the defendant came to her with the pants and hose and stated that he wanted to sell them for Wilbur Washington, the person with whom he was jointly indicted that he hunted up Washington and brought him to her house, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial