State v. Fiske
Decision Date | 25 October 1893 |
Citation | 63 Conn. 388,28 A. 572 |
Parties | STATE v. FISKE. |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Hartford county; R. Wheeler, Judge.
George Fiske was convicted of assault with intent to murder, and appeals. Affirmed.
J. L. Barbour, for appellant.
G. A Conant and A. F. Eggleston, for the State.
The charge is that the accused, "with force and arms, in and upon one Julius H. Clark, in the peace then and there being, willfully and feloniously did make an assault, and with a certain knife, which he, the said George Fiske, then and there had and held, did then and there willfully, and of his malice aforethought, strike, cut, and stab the said Julius H. Clark in and upon his neck and throat and other parts of his body, with intent him, the said Julius H. Clark, willfully, feloniously, and of his malice aforethought, to kill and murder," etc. A second count charges him with the same offense upon the persons of said Clark and one James Nolan. Only one offense was claimed. On the trial the counsel for the accused claimed as a matter of law that, "to convict the accused of an assault with intent to murder, the state must prove the assault to have been committed willfully, deliberately, premeditatedly, and of malice aforethought," and requested the court to charge the jury as follows: The court declined to charge the jury fully in accordance with this request, but, after referring to some other matters, charged them as follows:
A part of this charge, if taken by itself, was liable to be misunderstood. For instance, when the jury were told that if the element of malice existed, without the qualifying word "aforethought," it was sufficient, they might, unless that was considered in connection with all that was said on that subject, have inferred that if simple...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Medrano
...NORCOTT, J., with whom ZARELLA and VERTEFEUILLE, Js., join, concurring. For nearly 120 years since State v. Fiske, 63 Conn. 388, 392, 28 A. 572 (1893), Connecticut trial judges have had the discretion, subject to certain constitutional limitations, to instruct jurors that they may consider ......
-
State v. Avcollie
...(1937); State v. Schleifer, 102 Conn. 708, 725, 130 A. 184 (1925); State v. Saxon, 87 Conn. 5, 22, 86 A. 590 (1913); State v. Fiske, 63 Conn. 388, 392, 28 A. 572 (1893). B Sanity The defendant also objects to the charge on the issue of sanity, claiming that it raised an impermissible presum......
-
State v. Maldonado
...(1937); State v. Schleifer, 102 Conn. 708, 725, 130 A. 184 (1925); State v. Saxon, 87 Conn. 5, 22, 86 A. 590 (1913); State v. Fiske, 63 Conn. 388, 392, 28 A. 572 (1893). It is inappropriate, however, for the court to preface the defendant's or any witness' testimony with such a We do not ag......
-
State v. Medrano, 18895.
...Js., concurred.NORCOTT, J., with whom ZARELLA and VERTEFEUILLE, Js., join, concurring. For nearly 120 years since State v. Fiske, 63 Conn. 388, 392, 28 A. 572 (1893), Connecticut trial judges have had the discretion, subject to certain constitutional limitations, to instruct jurors that the......