State v. Pearce
| Decision Date | 31 January 1894 |
| Docket Number | 8592 |
| Citation | 57 N.W. 1065,56 Minn. 226 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota v. Thomas J. Pearce |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Original Opinion of January 15, 1894, Reported at: 56 Minn. 226.
ON APPLICATION FOR REARGUMENT.
By the Court. The application for a reargument is denied. But as defendant's counsel thinks we have misapprehended some of his points, and overlooked others, we deem it proper, in view of the nature of the case to add:
1. That we meant to hold, and supposed that we had made our meaning sufficiently clear, that while the defendant could not be convicted upon the uncorroborated evidence of the woman, nor upon the uncorroborated evidence of her husband, yet he might be convicted on the evidence of the two, each corroborating the other; the woman not being an accomplice in the commission of the crime.
2. The court's definition of a "reasonable doubt," taken as a whole, was correct; and that part excepted to was in the form impliedly approved by this court in State v. Dineen, 10 Minn. 407, (Gil. 325.)
3. The court, in its charge, -- which is addressed to each juror individually, to guide his action, -- having instructed the jury that if they did not feel convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that all the material allegations of the indictment had been established, they must find the defendant not guilty, it was not error to refuse to charge that, "if any one or more" of them did not feel thus convinced, then such one or more of them should find for the defendant.
To continue reading
Request your trial