State v. Reel
| Decision Date | 03 March 1911 |
| Citation | 19 Idaho 463,113 P. 721 |
| Parties | STATE, Respondent, v. HARRY REEL, Appellant |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
BURGLARY-CONVICTION OF-SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE-INSTRUCTIONS.
(Syllabus by the court.)
1. The evidence held sufficient to sustain the verdict.
2. The instructions given by the court held to sufficiently cover the law of the case and that the court did not err in refusing to give certain instructions requested by defendant.
APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District for Ada County. Hon. Fremont Wood, Judge.
Prosecution and conviction for the crime of burglary. Judgment affirmed.
Affirmed.
G. G Adams and Harry Keyser, for Appellant.
D. C McDougall, Attorney General, O. M. Van Duyn and J. H Peterson, Assistants, for Respondent.
Counsel cite no authorities on points decided.
The appellant was informed against jointly with three others of the crime of burglary committed with explosives. Upon arraignment he demanded a separate trial, which was granted. Upon the trial he was found guilty on the 16th day of February, 1910, and was thereafter sentenced by the court to be confined in the penitentiary of the state for a term of not less than ten years. A motion for a new trial was denied. This appeal is from the judgment and from the order denying the new trial.
The assignments of error go to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and the refusal of the court to give certain requested instructions.
This court had before it at its September, 1910, term the case of State v. Harris, 18 Idaho 620, 111 P. 406. The defendant in that case was informed against in the same information and charged with the same crime as the defendant in this case. In that case this court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. In the case at bar the evidence was substantially the same as that in the case against Harris. On an examination of the evidence we find it amply sufficient to support the verdict. There is therefore no merit in the contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict.
It is next contended that the court erred in refusing to give certain instructions requested by counsel for defendant. It is a well-settled rule of law that where the instructions to the jury fairly state the law on all of the issues involved it is not error to refuse requests of the defendant even though they may be a repetition of the law of the case. On an examination of the instructions given, we find that they sufficiently cover the law of the case, and it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Carpenter, 7300
... ... [4] [67 Idaho 282] ... State v. Sayko, 37 Idaho 430, 216 P. 1036, and 71 ... A.L.R. 1116 ... Hence, ... there was no error in rejecting the requested instructions ... State v. Fleming, 17 Idaho 471, at page 489, syl. 9, ... 106 P. 305; State v. Reel, 19 Idaho 463, at page ... 464, 113 P. 721; State v. Willis, 24 Idaho 252, at ... page 264, syl. 5, 132 P. 962; State v. O'Neil, ... 24 Idaho 582, at page 600, 135 P. 60; State v ... Curtis, 29 Idaho 724, at page 734, 161 P. 578; State ... v. Petrogalli, 34 Idaho 232, at page 237, 200 P. 119; ... ...
-
State v. Cosler
...or the defendant, where the substance of the refused instruction is covered by another instruction given by the court. (State v. Reel, 19 Idaho 463, 113 P. 721; State v. O'Neil, 24 Idaho 582, 135 P. State v. Steers, 12 Idaho 174, 85 P. 104; State v. Fondren, 24 Idaho 663, 135 P. 265.) WM. E......
- Mineau v. Imperial Dredge & Exploration Co.