State v. Richards

• Decision Date: 02 January 1893
• Citation: 27 A. 122,85 Me. 252
• Parties: STATE v. RICHARDS.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

27 A. 122

85 Me. 252

STATE

v. RICHARDS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Jan. 2, 1893.

(Official.)

Exceptions from supreme judicial court, Kennebec county.

John H. Richards was convicted on a criminal charge, and brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

C. E. Littlefield, Arty. Gen., and L. T. Carleton, Co. Atty., for the State.

S. S. Brown, for defendant.

WHITEHOUSE, J. The defendant took exceptions to certain portions of the charge to the jury on the ground that the language employed was in contravention of the statute, which prohibits the presiding judge from expressing "an opinion upon issues of fact arising in the case." Rev. St c. 82, § 83.

It was not in controversy that the crime charged in the indictment had been committed by some one, and the question submitted to the jury was whether the accused was the criminal agent.

The assault appears to have been committed about 2 o'clock in the morning, and the proof of the defendant's identity with the perpetrator of the crime consisted mainly of circumstantial evidence. The complainant stated that she recognized the defendant by his voice at the time of the assault; and two witnesses testified that in the light of the early morning, they followed a man's tracks from the place of the assault across a public street and several door-yards to a stable, where the defendant was found asleep, soiled with mud. The defendant denies the possibility of tracing footsteps through that part of the town, and claimed that he was on the street, intoxicated, at an earlier hour, and, being assaulted and thrown to the ground by two men, at another point in the street, fled to the stable, and fell asleep. Several witnesses for the defendant testified that the complainant stated to them that before the defendant was found in the stable, covered with mud, she did not know who assaulted her.

After instructing the Jury that the presumption of defendant's innocence must be overcome by testimony which should convince them of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the presiding judge proceeded to explain the nature and operation of circumstantial evidence, closing as follows: "Now, if you have an impression that circumstantial evidence is necessarily inconclusive and imperfect I instruct you that its convincing power, like that of any other testimony, depends upon its character. Do the circumstances all concur not only to show the guilt of the prisoner, but are they all inconsistent with any other rational conclusion? A single circumstance may or may not have force in proving guilt. Jurors must avoid being carried away by the impulses of hastily formed conclusions and slight suspicions arising from independent, isolated facts, and weigh every circumstance proven in connection with all the other circumstances; and, if they are found all consistent with each other, all pointing to the guilt of the accused, and all at variance with any rational presumption of innocence, then, and not until then, are you to conclude that he is guilty." These were general observations, made before commenting on the testimony in the case; and the last sentence, to which exception is specially taken, was only an affirmation of a familiar principle suggested by reason and experience as the leading rule for the application of this kind of evidence, and recognized by courts and jurists as the great test of all presumptive proof. Circumstantial evidence simply comprises the minor relative facts standing around (circum-stantia) the principal fact to be proved. To use the expressive term of the Roman law, these facts are the indicia of truth, serving to point out the object sought They stand as silent witnesses of the main fact, continually pointing to it and aiding to fix its true character and significance. This method of investigating truth by circumstances is often characterized as a "convergence of rays of light to a common focus or center," but more frequently as the formation of a chain out of a number of separate links. The former simile more aptly illustrates the operation of independent and the latter of dependent, circumstances. But, however figuratively expressed, the idea to be conveyed is that several distinct circumstances, no one of which is conclusive in its nature and tendency, may be found so naturally associated with the fact in controversy, and so logically connected with each other, as to acquire from the combination a weight and efficacy that will be accepted as absolutely convincing. "If circumstances lead me, I will find where truth is hid, "says Shakespeare. The conclusion may follow necessarily from the proof of the circumstances, or may be deduced by a process of comparison and special inference. In the latter case the result is affirmatively reached in the first instance by means of the probabilities arising from the established facts examined in the light of the general experience and observation...