State v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 24 May 1905
• Citation: 14 N.D. 288,103 N.W. 565
• Parties: STATE v. JOHNSON.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

14 N.D. 288

103 N.W. 565

STATE

v.JOHNSON.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

May 24, 1905.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. An instruction given to a jury in the following language: “If you find from the evidence that any witness has sworn falsely as to any material fact or issue in this case, you should receive the testimony of such witness with caution. You have a right to reject the statement of such witnesses, excepting in so far as they may be corroborated by other credible evidence”-is error warranting the granting of a new trial.

2. An instruction in the following words: “On the other hand, the rule of law requiring the jurors to be satisfied of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to warrant a conviction, does not require that you should be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of each link in the chain of circumstances relied upon to establish the defendant's guilt. It is sufficient if, taking the testimony together, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty”-is erroneous. State v. Young, 82 N. W. 420, 9 N. D. 165, followed.

Appeal from District Court, Billings County; W. H. Winchester, Judge.

T. E. Johnson was convicted of willfully killing a horse, and appeals. Reversed.F. B. Morrill and C. E. Gregory, for appellant. Carl N. Frich, Atty. Gen., for the State.

MORGAN, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of willfully and unlawfully killing a horse, contrary to the provisions of section 7506, Rev. Codes 1899, and sentenced to one year's imprisonment in the penitentiary. He assigns as error, among others, the giving of certain instructions, one of which was in the following language: “If you find from the evidence that any witness has sworn falsely as to any material fact or issue in this case, you should receive the testimony of such witness with caution. You have a right to reject the statement of such witnesses, excepting in so far as they may be corroborated by other credible evidence.” This instruction authorized the jury to reject the testimony of any witness because of the falsity of some of it. The fact that a witness gives testimony that is false is not ground for entirely disregarding his testimony. A witness' testimony should not be wholly disregarded because he has innocently made a mistake as to a material fact. The testimony must be willfully and intentionally false, before the jury may disregard it unless corroborated. A similar instruction has been twice condemned by this court, and the giving of it held prejudicial error. McPherrin v. Jones, 5 N. D. 261, 65 N. W. 685;State v. Campbell, 7 N. D. 58, 72 N. W. 935. The correctness of these prior decisions cannot be successfully assailed, and they are...