State v. Glass

• Citation: 151 N.W. 229,29 N.D. 620
• Decision Date: 19 January 1915
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

151 N.W. 229

29 N.D. 620

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA v. HERBERT GLASS

Supreme Court of North Dakota

January 19, 1915

Rehearing denied March 1, 1915.

Appeal from the District Court of Bowman County, Hon. W. L. Nuessle Judge.

Affirmed.

Bangs Netcher, & Hamilton, for appellant.

Circumstantial evidence should be expressly defined, and the rules governing its effect should be concisely stated. It is always the duty of the trial court to so clearly define such evidence whether requested or not, and a failure to do so is prejudicial error. The court failed to do so in this case, and the defendant's substantial rights were prejudiced, and he is entitled to a new trial. 12 Cyc. 633; 1 Greenl. Ev. 15th ed. § 13, note A; People v. Strong, 30 Cal. 151; Burton v. State, 107 Ala. 108, 18 So. 284; Casey v. State, 20 Neb. 138, 29 N.W. 264; Brookin v. State, 26 Tex.App. 121, 9 S.W. 735; State v. Johnson, 19 Iowa 231; Horne v. State, 1 Kan. 42, 81 Am. Dec. 499; People v. Lambert, 5 Mich. 367, 72 Am. Dec. 49; State v. Novak, 109 Iowa 717, 79 N.W. 465.

Where the proof rests upon circumstantial evidence, it must be so clear and convincing as to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. Barnard v. State, 88 Tenn. 183, 12 S.W. 444; Turner v. Enrille, 4 Dall. 7, 1 L.Ed. 717; 1 Greenl. Ev. 15th ed. § 13, note A; People v. Strong, 30 Cal. 151; 12 Cyc. 633; Burton v. State, 107 Ala. 108, 18 So. 284; People v. Lambert, 5 Mich. 367, 72 Am. Dec. 49; Casey v. State, 20 Neb. 138, 29 N.W. 264; Carlton v. People, 150 Ill. 181, 41 Am. St. Rep. 346, 37 N.E. 244, 9 Am. Crim. Rep. 62; Brookin v. State, 26 Tex.App. 121, 9 S.W. 735; State v. Johnson, 19 Iowa 231; Horne v. State, 1 Kan. 42, 81 Am. Dec. 499; State v. Novak, 109 Iowa 717, 79 N.W. 465; Territory v. Lermo, 8 N. M. 566, 46 P. 16; Harrison v. State, 9 Tex.App. 407; Com. v. Goodwin, 14 Gray, 55; Com. v. Costley, 118 Mass. 1; Sumner v. State, 5 Blackf. 579, 36 Am. Dec. 561; People v. Aikin, 66 Mich. 461, 11 Am. St. Rep. 512, 33 N.W. 821, 7 Am. Crim. Rep. 345; Barnes v. State, 41 Tex. 344; Wroth v. Norton, 33 Tex. 192; People v. Phipps, 39 Cal. 326.

The court erred by his failure to fully and clearly charge the jury upon the question of the alibi claimed by defendant. What the court said and what it failed to say, as it was its duty to do, was clearly prejudicial to defendant. This was a material issue in the case, and, whether requested to do so or not, it was the duty of the trial court to tell the jury fully the law upon the question, and its application to this case. Rev. Codes 1905, § 10026; State v. Fenlason, 78 Me. 495, 7 A. 385; 12 Cyc. 659; Lang v. State, 16 Lea, 433, 1 S.W. 319; State v. Matthews, 20 Mo. 55; State v. Palmer, 88 Mo. 568; State v. Stonum, 62 Mo. 596; Fulcher v. State, 41 Tex. 233; Sanders v. State, 41 Tex. 307; Elam v. State, 16 Tex.App. 34; Crist v. State, 21 Tex.App. 361, 17 S.W. 260; Lewis v. State, 18 Tex.App. 408.

Where the proof, as in this case, fairly raises the defense of an alibi, the jury should be instructed that if such evidence in connection with the other proof in the case raised a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was present at the place of the homicide, or at a different place, the defendant should be acquitted. Legere v. State, 111 Tenn. 368, 102 Am. St. 786, 77 S.W. 1059; Davis v. State, 5 Baxt. 612; Wiley v. State, 5 Baxt. 662; Jefferson v. State, 3 Shannon, Cas. 330; Prince v. State, 100 Ala. 144, 46 Am. St. Rep. 28, 14 So. 409; Miles v. State, 93 Ga. 117, 44 Am. St. Rep. 140, 19 S.E. 805; Carlton v. People, 150 Ill. 181, 41 Am. St. Rep. 346, 37 N.E. 244, 9 Am. Crim. Rep. 62; People v. Roberts, 122 Cal. 377, 55 P. 137, 11 Am. Crim. Rep. 31; Flanagan v. People, 214 Ill. 170, 73 N.E. 347; State v. Wollard, 111 Mo. 248, 20 S.W. 27; Peyton v. State, 54 Neb. 188, 74 N.W. 597, 11 Am. Crim. Rep. 47; Tipton v. State, 119 Ga. 304, 46 S.E. 436, 15 Am. Crim. Rep. 209; State v. King, 174 Mo. 647, 74 S.W. 627, 15 Am. Crim. Rep. 616; State v. MacQueen, 69 N.J.L. 522, 55 A. 1006; State v. Gadsden, 70 S.C. 430, 50 S.E. 16; 2 Thomp. Trials, § 2287; State v. Thornton, 10 S.D. 349, 41 L.R.A. 530, 73 N.W. 196; Arismendis v. State, Tex. Crim. Rep. , 60 S.W. 47; Smith v. State, Tex. Crim. Rep. , 50 S.W. 362.

The rule is that where defendant's evidence tends to prove an alibi, a refusal to instruct specially on the law of alibi is error. 14 Century Dig. col. 2574, § 1833, and cases cited; 12 Cyc. 619; Binns v. State, 46 Ind. 311; State v. Conway, 55 Kan. 323, 40 P. 661; Wiley v. State, 5 Baxt. 662; State v. Powers, 72 Vt. 168, 47 A. 830; Burton v. State, 107 Ala. 108, 18 So. 285; State v. Edwards, 109 Mo. 315, 19 S.W. 91; 2 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 55, cases cited in note 1; Deggs v. State, 7 Tex.App. 359; McGrew v. State, 10 Tex.App. 539; Granger v. State, 11 Tex.App. 454; Ayres v. State, 21 Tex.App. 399, 17 S.W. 253; People v. Stone, 117 N.Y. 480, 23 N.E. 13; State v. Childs, 40 Kan. 482, 20 P. 275; Howard v. State, 50 Ind. 190; Bishop v. State, 43 Tex. 402; 2 Thomp. Trials, § 2317; Union Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Buchanan, 100 Ind. 73; Boots v. Canine, 94 Ind. 408; State v. Nadal, 69 Iowa 478, 29 N.W. 451; State v. Johnson, 40 Kan. 266, 19 P. 749.

The burden of proof in such cases is at all times upon the state, and does not shift because of the attempt of defendant to prove an alibi, and if, by reason of such claim or of defendant's evidence to support it, the jury should doubt the guilt of the accused, he should be acquitted, and the court should so instruct. State v. Conway, 55 Kan. 323, 40 P. 661; People v. Lee Sare Bo, 72 Cal. 623, 14 P. 310; State v. Child, 40 Kan. 482, 20 P. 275; Pollard v. State, 53 Miss. 410, 24 Am. Rep. 703; State v. Jackson, 36 S.C. 487, 31 Am. St. Rep. 890, 15 S.E. 559; Sharp v. State, 51 Ark. 147, 14 Am. St. Rep. 27, 10 S.W. 228.

The defendant on appeal can take advantage of the failure of the court to instruct upon all material questions, without an exception on the trial. People v. McGuire, 89 Mich. 64, 50 N.W. 786; State v. Murray, 91 Mo. 95, 3 S.W. 397; People v. Macard, 73 Mich. 15, 40 N.W. 784; Whaley v. State, 9 Tex.App. 306; Heath v. State, 7 Tex.App. 464; McGrew v. State, 10 Tex.App. 539; Vincent v. State, 9 Tex.App. 303; Bishop v. State, 43 Tex. 390; Wilson v. State, 41 Tex. Crim. Rep. 115, 51 S.W. 916; Joy v. State, Tex. Crim. Rep. , 51 S.W. 935; State v. Rowland, Iowa , 33 N.W. 137; People v. Lee Gam, 69 Cal. 552, 11 P. 183, 7 Am. Crim. Rep. 61; State v. Fenlason, 78 Me. 495, 7 A. 385; State v. Fry, 67 Iowa 475, 25 N.W. 738; State v. Johnson, 72 Iowa 393, 34 N.W. 177; State v. Mahan, 68 Iowa 304, 20 N.W. 449, 27 N.W. 249; Landis v. State, 70 Ga. 651, 48 Am. Rep. 588; State v. Hardin, 46 Iowa 623, 26 Am. Rep. 174; State v. Lightfoot, 107 Iowa 344, 78 N.W. 41, 11 Am. Crim. Rep. 588; Barbe v. Territory, 16 Okla. 562, 86 P. 61; Legere v. State, 111 Tenn. 368, 102 Am. St. Rep. 781, 77 S.W. 1059; Davis v. State, 5 Baxt. 612; Wiley v. State, 3 Shannon, Cas. 330; People v. Stone, 117 N.Y. 480, 23 N.E. 13; People v. Lee Sare Bo, 72 Cal. 623, 14 P. 310; State v. Child, 40 Kan. 482, 20 P. 275; State v. Chee Gong, 16 Ore. 534, 19 P. 607; Pollard v. State, 53 Miss. 410, 24 Am. Rep. 703; Peyton v. State, 54 Neb. 188, 74 N.W. 597, 11 Am. Crim. Rep. 47; State v. Conway, 55 Kan. 323, 40 P. 661; Prince v. State, 100 Ala. 144, 46 Am. St. Rep. 28, 14 So. 409; Miles v. State, 93 Ga. 117, 44 Am. St. Rep. 140, 19 S.E. 805; People v. Roberts, 122 Cal. 377, 55 P. 138, 11 Am. Crim. Rep. 31; Flanagan v. People, 214 Ill. 170, 73 N.E. 347; Tipton v. State, 119 Ga. 304, 46 S.E. 436, 15 Am. Crim. Rep. 209; State v. King, 174 Mo. 647, 74 S.W. 627, 15 Am. Crim. Rep. 616; State v. MacQueen, 69 N.J.L. 522, 55 A. 1006; State v. Gadsden, 70 S.C. 430, 50 S.E. 15; State v. Ward, 61 Vt. 153, 17 A. 486, 8 Am. Crim. Rep. 207; 12 Cyc. 659; Lang v. State, 16 Lea, 433, 1 S.W. 319; State v. Matthews, 20 Mo. 55; State v. Palmer, 88 Mo. 568; State v. Stonum, 62 Mo. 596; Fulcher v. State, 41 Tex. 233; Sanders v. State, 41 Tex. 307; Elam v. State, 16 Tex.App. 34; Crist v. State, 21 Tex.App. 361, 17 S.W. 260; Lewis v. State, 18 Tex.App. 408; 2 Thomp. Trials, § 2287; State v. Thornton, 10 S.D. 349, 41 L.R.A. 530, 73 N.W. 196; Arismendes v. State, Tex. Crim. Rep. , 60 S.W. 47; Smith v. State, Tex. Crim. Rep. , 50 S.W. 362; Binns v. State, 46 Ind. 311; State v. Conway, 55 Kan. 323, 40 P. 661; State v. Powers, 72 Vt. 168, 47 A. 830; Burton v. State, 107 Ala. 108, 18 So. 285; State v. Edwards, 109 Mo. 315, 19 S.W. 91; 2 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 55; Deggs v. State, 7 Tex.App. 359; Granger v. State, 11 Tex.App. 454; Ayres v. State, 21 Tex.App. 399, 17 S.W. 253; State v. Nadal, 69 Iowa 478, 29 N.W. 451.

The witness Thomas Carberry was in law an accomplice, and his testimony must be corroborated not only in a material part of the story, but particularly in that part which goes to establish the guilt of the accused. The corroborated testimony must connect or tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime. Ortis v. State, 18 Tex.App. 282; Cross v. People, 47 Ill. 152, 95 Am. Dec. 474; State v. Kellar, 8 N.D. 563, 73 Am. St. Rep. 775, 80 N.W. 476.

"An accomplice in crime is one who co-operates, aids, or assists in committing it." Cross v. People, 47 Ill 152, 95 Am. Dec. 474; State v. Jones, 115 Iowa 113, 88 N.W. 196; State v. Douglas, 26 Nev. 196, 99 Am. St. Rep. 688, 65 P. 802; Rev. Codes 1905, § 10004; State v. Kellar, 8 N.D. 563, 73 Am. St. Rep. 775, 80 N.W. 476; State v. Coudotte, 7 N.D. 109, 72 N.W. 913; Fort v. State, 52 Ark. 180, 20 Am. St. Rep. 163, 11 S.W. 959; State v. Odell, 8 Ore. 31; State v. Mikesele, 70 Iowa 176, 30 N.W. 474; Wright v. State, 43 Tex. 170; People v. Davis, 21 Wend. 309; Com. v. Holmes, 127 Mass. 424, 34 Am. Rep....