State v. Hayes

• Decision Date: 01 February 1909
• Citation: 99 P. 434,38 Mont. 219
• Parties: STATE v. HAYES.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

99 P. 434

38 Mont. 219

STATE v. HAYES.

Supreme Court of Montana

February 1, 1909

Appeal from District Court, Powell County; Geo. B. Winston, Judge.

William Hayes was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

O. B O'Bannan and J. H. Duffy, for appellant.

Albert J. Galen, Atty. Gen., and W. H. Poorman, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.

SMITH J.

The above-named appellant and Geo. Rock, Orem Stevens, and C. B Young were accused of the crime of murder, alleged to have been committed in Powell county. The charging part of the information reads as follows: "Said George Rock, William Hayes, Orem Stevens, and C. B. Young did on the 8th day of March, A. D. 1908, at and in the said county of Powell, state of Montana, and prior to the filing of this information, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, premeditatedly, and of their premeditated malice aforethought kill and murder one John Robinson, a human being, then and there being, contrary to the form, force, and effect of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Montana." All the defendants were prisoners in the penitentiary, and Robinson was a guard. The accused were tried separately. At the trial of Hayes the state contended that the killing of Robinson was done while the defendants were carrying out a conspiracy, theretofore formed, to escape from the penitentiary. It is not contended that the defendant did not have a fair and impartial trial. On the contrary, counsel for the appellant say in their brief: "It will be conceded by counsel for the appellant herein that said appellant had a fair and impartial trial before a judge who zealously guarded and protected the rights of this appellant during his trial to the best of his ability. Counsel for appellant, however, feel it their duty to present the cause of the appellant to this court, to the end that the court may finally determine whether any error was committed by the trial court affecting and injuring the substantial rights of the appellant, as they exist under the law of the state. *** It is not claimed that the trial court committed any error affecting the substantial rights of the appellant by giving the jury any of the instructions contained in the transcript." But two questions are involved:

1. Defendant's counsel objected to the introduction of any evidence, for the reasons: (a) "That the information does not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense or crime. (b) It does not state facts sufficient to constitute murder in any degree. (c) It does not state facts sufficient to constitute any crime included within the crime of murder. The information does not substantially comply with the provisions of sections 1832-1834 of the Penal Code 1895 (Rev....