State v. Reilly

• Decision Date: 21 May 1913
• Docket Number: 81912
• Citation: 141 N.W. 720,25 N.D. 339
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

141 N.W. 720

25 N.D. 339

THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA v. JAMES J. REILLY

No. 81912

Supreme Court of North Dakota

May 21, 1913

Affirmed on rehearing May 20, 1913.

Appeal from the District Court for Cavalier County, Hon. A. G. Burr J., sitting by request.

Defendant was convicted of the crime of murder in the second degree and appeals.

Affirmed.

E. R Sinkler and J. A. Heder, for appellant.

The information in this case is defective, in that it contains mere recitals, instead of positive and direct allegations of fact, and defendant's demurrer should have been sustained. State v. Trueblood, 25 Ind.App. 437, 57 N.E. 975; Bassett v. State, 41 Ind. 303; State v. McIntyre, 19 Minn. 93, Gil. 65; State v. Belyea, 9 N.D. 353, 83 N.W. 1.

The burden of proof was upon the state to show that the abortion or miscarriage was not necessary. The state requires such negative fact to be set out, and the state has the burden of supporting it. People v. Balkwell, 143 Cal. 259, 76 P. 1017; State v. Lee, 69 Conn. 186, 37 A. 75; State v. Magnell, 3 Penn. (Del.) 307, 51 A. 606; Howard v. People, 185 Ill. 552, 57 N.E. 441; Diehl v. State, 157 Ind. 549, 62 N.E. 51; State v. Aiken, 109 Iowa 643, 80 N.W. 1073; State v Watson, 30 Kan. 281, 1 P. 770; Dixon v. State, 46 Neb. 298, 64 N.W. 961; State v. Clements, 15 Ore. 237, 14 P. 410; Hatchard v. State, 79 Wis. 357, 48 N.W. 380.

The evidence in this case, instead of showing the non-necessity of the operation, clearly shows that an operation was necessary to the preservation of life. State v. Wells, 35 Utah 400, 136 Am. St. Rep. 1059, 100 P. 681, 19 Ann. Cas. 631; 1 Enc. Ev. 56; 4 Elliott, Ev. 2771; Bishop, Statutory Crimes, 762.

An expert witness cannot give his opinion based upon the testimony of witnesses he has heard, without assuming such testimony to be true. Barber's Appeal, 63 Conn. 393, 22 L.R.A. 90, 27 A. 973; Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Falvey, 104 Ind. 409, 3 N.E. 389, 4 N.E. 908; Stoddard v. Winchester, 157 Mass. 567, 32 N.E. 948; Elliott v. Russell, 92 Ind. 526; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Moffitt, 75 Ill. 524; Burns v. Barenfield, 84 Ind. 43; McCarthy v. Boston Duck Co. 165 Mass. 165, 42 N.E. 568; Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464; State v. Lautenschlager, 22 Minn. 514; Jones v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co. 43 Minn. 279, 45 N.W. 444; Carpenter v. Blake, 2 Lans. 206; Link v. Sheldon, 136 N.Y. 1, 32 N.E. 696; Armendaiz v. Stillman, 67 Tex. 458, 3 S.W. 678; Luning v. State, 2 Pinney (Wis.) 215, 52 Am. Dec. 153; Henry v. Hall, 13 Ill.App. 343; Rush v. Megee, 36 Ind. 69; Woodbury v. Obear, 7 Gray, 467; Reed v. State, 62 Miss. 405; Reynolds v. Robinson, 64 N.Y. 589; Hagadorn v. Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co. 22 Hun, 249; Gregory v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. 55 Hun, 303, 8 N.Y.S. 525; Re Snelling, 136 N.Y. 515, 32 N.E. 1006; Gottlieb v. Hartman, 3 Colo. 53; Elgin, A. & S. Traction Co. v. Wilson, 217 Ill. 47, 75 N.E. 436, 19 Am. Neg. Rep. 145; Keyes-Marshall Bros. Livery Co. v. St. Louis & H. R. Co. 105 Mo.App. 556, 80 S.W. 53; Bedford Belt R. Co. v. Palmer, 16 Ind.App. 17, 44 N.E. 686; Crozier v. Minneapolis Street R. Co. 106 Minn. 77, 118 N.W. 256; Williams v. State, 64 Md. 384, 1 A. 887, 5 Am. Crim. Rep. 512; People v. Millard, 53 Mich. 63, 18 N.W. 562; State v. Scott, 41 Minn. 365, 43 N.W. 62; People v. McElvaine, 121 N.Y. 250, 18 Am. St. Rep. 820, 24 N.E. 465; State v. Bowman, 78 N.C. 509; State v. Coleman, 20 S.C. 441; Bennett v. State, 57 Wis. 69, 46 Am. Rep. 26, 14 N.W. 912; People v. Vanderhoof, 71 Mich. 158, 39 N.W. 28; People v. Aikin, 66 Mich. 460, 11 Am. St. Rep. 512, 33 N.W. 828, 7 Am. Crim. Rep. 345; State v. Maier, 36 W.Va. 757, 15 S.E. 991; 17 Cyc. 253.

The question of how the abortion or miscarriage was caused, was in dispute, and was a question for the jury, and it was error to admit the testimony of medical expert witnesses as to their opinion, based upon other evidence not assumed to be true. The question, "Did the doctor tell you the history of the case?" is entirely improper, and affords no foundation for opinion evidence, since it calls for a mere conclusion. State v. Moeller, 20 N.D. 114, 126 N.W. 568.

The charge of the court should be free from intimating any opinion as to the weight of the evidence, or as to what has been proven. State v. Barry, 11 N.D. 428, 92 N.W. 809; People v. Williams, 17 Cal. 142; State v. Whitney, 7 Ore. 386; Benedict v. State, 14 Wis. 424; Snyder v. State, 59 Ind. 105; State v. Bige, 112 Iowa 433, 84 N.W. 518; People v. Cowgill, 93 Cal. 596, 29 P. 228; Stokes v. People, 53 N.Y. 164, 13 Am. Rep. 492; McKenna v. People, 81 N.Y. 360; People v. Johnson, 106 Cal. 289, 39 P. 622.

In charging the jury the court has no right to assume or state that a "crime has been committed." People v. Casey, 65 Cal. 260, 3 P. 874, 5 Am. Crim. Rep. 318; People v. Gordon, 88 Cal. 422, 26 P. 502; Brown v. State, 72 Miss. 997, 17 So. 278; Pettus v. State, 58 Tex. Crim. Rep. 546, 137 Am. St. Rep. 978, 126 S.W. 868; Collins v. State, 13 Fla. 651; Bond v. People, 39 Ill. 26; Newton v. State, Miss. , 12 So. 560; State v. Porter, 74 Iowa 623, 38 N.W. 514; Chapman v. State, 109 Ga. 157, 34 S.E. 369; Stephens v. State, 118 Ga. 762, 45 S.E. 619; Santee v. State, Tex. Crim. Rep. , 37 S.W. 436; Reese v. State, 44 Tex Crim. Rep. 34, 68 S.W. 283; Reese v. State, Tex. Crim. Rep. , 70 S.W. 424; Cortez v. State, Tex. Crim. Rep. , 74 S.W. 907; Cavaness v. State, 45 Tex. Crim. Rep. 209, 74 S.W. 908; McCleary v. State, 57 Tex. Crim. Rep. 139, 122 S.W. 26.

The charge of the court violates every presumption of innocence, and of reasonable doubt. State v. Denny, 17 N.D. 519, 117 N.W. 869.

The intent of the defendant to commit the crime charged is one of the essential ingredients of the crime, and should be established by the state, beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant is not required to prove its absence. The state must prove its presence. People v. Ribolsi, 89 Cal. 492, 26 P. 1082; Ogletree v. State, 28 Ala. 693; Rogers v. Com. 96 Ky. 24, 27 S.W. 813; State v. Schaefer, 35 Mont. 217, 88 P. 792; Thomas v. State, 57 Tex. Crim. Rep. 452, 125 S.W. 35; Com. v. Greene, 227 Pa. 86, 136 Am. St. Rep. 867, 75 A. 1024; State v. Pilling, 53 Wash. 464, 132 Am. St. Rep. 1080, 102 P. 230; People v. Mize, 80 Cal. 41, 22 P. 80.

The charge of the court, in effect, places the burden of proof upon the defendant to show that he had no intent to procure an abortion, or that it was necessary to preserve life. People v. Ribolsi, 89 Cal. 492, 26 P. 1082; People v. Gordon, 88 Cal. 422, 26 P. 502; People v. Mize, 80 Cal. 41, 22 P. 80; People v. Rodrigo, 69 Cal. 601, 11 P. 481, 8 Am. Crim. Rep. 53.

In such cases the defendant is not required to prove the necessity of the abortion to save life. The burden is upon the state to prove the contrary beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Wells, 35 Utah 400, 136 Am. St. Rep. 1059, 100 P. 683, 19 Ann. Cas. 631; 1 Cyc. 181; State v. Longstreth, 19 N.D. 268, 121 N.W. 1114, Ann Cas. 1912D, 1317; People v. Balkwell, 143 Cal. 259, 76 P. 1017; State v. Lee, 69 Conn. 186, 37 A. 75; State v. Magnell, 3 Penn. (Del.) 307, 51 A. 606; Howard v. People, 185 Ill. 552, 57 N.E. 441; Diehl v. State, 157 Ind. 549, 62 N.E. 51; State v. Aiken, 109 Iowa 643, 80 N.W. 1073; State v. Watson, 30 Kan. 281, 1 P. 770; Dixon v. State, 46 Neb. 298, 64 N.W. 961.

The charge of the court that the jury could wholly disregard the testimony of any witness who had wilfully and knowingly testified falsely, "unless corroborated by other creditable testimony," was error, because the phrase, "unless corroborated by the facts and circumstances proven on the trial," was omitted.

Such words constitute an essential part of the qualified exception. F. Dohmen Co. v. Niagara F. Ins. Co. 96 Wis. 38, 71 N.W. 69; Mercer v. Wright, 3 Wis. 645; Morely v. Dunbar, 24 Wis. 185; Allen v. Murray, 87 Wis. 41, 57 N.W. 979; Hillman v. Schwenk, 68 Mich. 293, 36 N.W. 77; Blotcky Bros. v. Caplan, 91 Iowa 352, 59 N.W. 204; State v. Musgrave, 43 W.Va. 672, 28 S.E. 813.

A new trial may be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, even though the evidence is cumulative. Hart v. Brainerd, 68 Conn. 50, 35 A. 776; Anderson v. State, 43 Conn. 514, 21 Am. Rep. 669; Keet v. Mason, 167 Mass. 154, 45 N.E. 81; Preston v. Otey, 88 Va. 491, 14 S.E. 88; Ellis v. Ginsburg, 163 Mass. 143, 39 N.E. 800; Kochel v. Bartlett, 88 Ind. 237; Mercer v. King, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 781, 42 S.W. 106; State v. Stowe, 3 Wash. 206, 14 L.R.A. 609, 28 P. 337; Smythe v. State, 17 Tex.App. 244; Lawson v. State, 13 Tex.App. 264; Tyler v. State, 13 Tex.App. 205; Pinckord v. State, 13 Tex.App. 468.

Andrew Miller, Attorney General, and W. P. Costello, Assistant Attorney General, and G. Grimson, State's Attorney, Cavalier County, for respondent.

The demurrer interposed by the defendant is too general and indefinite, in that no special defect is alleged which might have been cured by seasonable objection. State v. Longstreth, 19 N.D. 279, 121 N.W. 1114, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 1317.

Courts are entitled to have all objections specifically pointed out. People v. Hill, 3 Utah 334, 3 P. 75; Flohr v. Territory, 14 Okla. 477, 78 P. 565; Rev. Codes 1905, Section 8912; Penal Code 1877, Section 377; Rev. Codes 1899, Section 7177; Bassett v. State, 41 Ind. 303; State v. Belyea, 9 N.D. 353, 83 N.W. 1. Distinguished.

The matter of the insufficiency of the evidence is not properly raised in the supreme court, unless first raised and argued in the district court, to afford that court an opportunity to consider and pass upon such question. State v. Empting, 21 N.D. 128, 128 N.W. 1119; State v. Albertson, 20 N.D. 512, 128 N.W. 1122.

The objection and exception to evidence must be specific. 8 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 217-223.

The particular point of the objections must be stated...