State v. Conahan
| Decision Date | 05 December 1894 |
| Parties | STATE v. CONAHAN. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Lewis county; W. W. Langhorne, Judge.
William F. Conahan was convicted of mayhem, and appeals. Affirmed.
Elliott & Forney, for appellant.
A. E Rice, Pros. Atty., and Maurice A. Langhorne, for the State.
Defendant was charged with having bitten off the ear of one Stapleton and thereby committing the crime of mayhem. Trial was had, a verdict of guilty rendered, and judgment and sentence imposed, from which this appeal has been prosecuted. Several errors are relied upon as reasons for reversal, but the principal ones refer to certain instructions given to the jury. The instruction upon which the most vigorous attack was made was in the following language: "If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Conahan did unlawfully and willfully bite or bite off the whole or a part of the left ear of Stapleton, then the burden of proof is upon Conahan to show that he could not defend himself from bodily harm without resorting to biting the left ear of Stapleton; and, unless he does so satisfy you, the defendant is guilty, and such should be your verdict,"-from which it will be seen that the learned court was of the opinion that, upon the fact of the injury having been shown the burden of proving that it was inflicted under such circumstances as made it justifiable was cast upon the defendant. In our opinion, this was error. That such was once the rule may be conceded, but the overwhelming weight of authority at this time is in favor of the rule that the burden of proof in cases of this kind never shifts to the defendant; that, at whatever stage of the case it may go to the jury to award a verdict of guilty, they must find that the facts necessary to constitute the crime charged have been proven; and that the burden of showing the nonexistence of such facts is never upon the defendant. Under this rule, it is the duty of the jury to acquit, unless from the whole case it affirmatively appears that the facts necessary to constitute the crime charged existed as against the defendant. This, of course, does not in any manner change the rule that from certain acts certain intents will be presumed. But it is no longer the law that the burden of negativing an intent by a preponderance of proof is upon the defendant. It follows that the court committed error in giving the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Recuenco
...or explained by any other instruction" and considering whether an insufficient instruction would mislead the jury); State v. Conahan, 10 Wash. 268, 268-69, 38 P. 996 (1894) (affirming a conviction despite an erroneous jury instruction regarding a burden of proof because the defendant would ......
-
State v. Williams-Walker
...error not harmless where essential element of the offense was omitted such that jury was likely misled); State v. Conahan, 10 Wash. 268, 269, 38 P. 996 (1894); State v. Witherow, 15 Wash. 562, 563, 46 P. 1035 (1896) (holding any instructional error was harmless as the "proof conclusively sh......
-
State v. Riordan
...Downs, 123 N.Y. 558, 25 N.E. 988; People v. Riordan, 117 N.Y. 71, 22 N.E. 455; Barton v. Territory, 10 Ariz. 68, 85 P. 730; State v. Conahan, 10 Wash. 268, 38 P. 996; v. Earnest, 56 Kan. 31, 42 P. 359; Boykin v. People, 22 Colo. 496, 45 P. 419; State v. Bartlett, 43 N.H. 224, 80 Am. Dec. 15......
-
State v. Hazlet
...defendant's guilt, they must acquit him. Section 10023, Rev. Codes 1905; People v. Neary, 37 P. 943; People v. Powell, 25 P. 481; State v. Conahan, 38 P. 996; People v. Elliot, 22 P. 207; People Scott, 56 P. 102; People v. Lanagan, 22 P. 482; People v. Dillon, 30 P. 150; People v. Tidwell, ......