State v. Sing

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho
Writing for the CourtDUNN, J.
Citation35 Idaho 616,208 P. 860
PartiesSTATE, Respondent, v. DONG SING and LO MING, Appellants
Decision Date01 July 1922

208 P. 860

35 Idaho 616

STATE, Respondent,
v.

DONG SING and LO MING, Appellants

Supreme Court of Idaho

July 1, 1922


HOMICIDE - EVIDENCE - GARMENTS OF DECEASED - ADMISSIBILITY - PREJUDICIAL REMARKS BY COUNSEL-PENALTY-WHEN MATTER FOR JURY - INSTRUCTIONS - IMPEACHMENT - DEGREES OF MURDER - MALICE-PREMEDITATION-REASONABLE DOUBT.

1. Articles of clothing worn at the time of the crime by the person injured or killed are admissible in evidence, provided they illustrate or throw light on some issue, and provided they are properly identified and are shown to be in substantially the same condition as at the time of the offense.

2. In a criminal case in which the jury may fix the penalty it is necessary for the court to instruct the jury what penalty is provided by the law, but it is not proper to convey to the jury information as to the penalty in case of offenses the punishment for which is determined only by the court.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, for Ada County. Hon. F. J. Cowen, Judge Presiding.

Appellants were convicted of the crime of murder in the first degree. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

Perky & Brinck and C. H. Edwards, for Appellants.

Admission of gruesome exhibits, when not necessary to establish a material fact, is erroneous as tending to inflame the jury. (Flege v. State, 93 Neb. 610, 142 N.W. 276, 47 L. R. A., N. S., 1106; McKay v. State, 90 Neb. 63, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1034, 132 N.W. 741, 39 L. R. A., N. S., 714; Id., 91 Neb. 281, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1034, 135 N.W. 1024, 39 L. R. A., N. S., 720; State v. McKnight, 21 N.M. 14, 153 P. 76, 82; State v. Porter, 276 Mo. 387, 207 S.W. 774; Crenshaw v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. 77, 85 S.W. 1147; Melton v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. 451, 83 S.W. 822; Williams v. State, 61 Tex. Cr. 356, 136 S.W. 771; 2 Wharton, Crim. Ev., 10th ed., sec. 941.)

In a prosecution for homicide the court shall correctly charge the jury on all degrees of the offense. (State v. Phinney, 13 Idaho 307, 12 Ann. Cas. 1079, 89 P. 634, 12 L. R. A., N. S., 935; People v. Dunn, 1 Idaho 74; State v. Lindsey, 19 Nev. 47, 3 Am. St. 776, 5 P. 822.) A correct instruction does not cure an erroneous instruction on the same subject. (State v. Clayton, 83 N.J.L. 673, 85 A. 173; State v. Fuller, 114 N.C. 885, 19 S.E. 797; People v. Valencia, 43 Cal. 552, 555; Binns v. State, 66 Ind. 428, at 434; State v. Fowler, 13 Idaho 317, 89 P. 757; State v. Webb, 6 Idaho 428, 55 P. 892.)

Malice aforethought does not involve premeditation or deliberation. (C. S., sec. 8074, subd. 4; Wharton, Homicide, 3d ed., sec. 134; 2 Bishop, Crim. Law, 7th ed., secs. 677, 726; McClain, Crim. Law, sec. 329; Ross v. State, 8 Wyo. 351, 57 P. 924.)

Malice should not be defined as including anger. (State v. Rogers, 30 Idaho 259, 163 P. 912.)

It is error to instruct that to constitute first degree murder there need be no appreciable time between the forming of the intent and the act. (State v. Rutten, 13 Wash. 203, 43 P. 30, 32; State v. Moody, 18 Wash. 165, 51 P. 356; State v. Bridgham, 51 Wash. 18, 97 P. 1096, 1098; State v. Arata, 56 Wash. 185, 21 Ann. Cas. 242, 105 P. 227, 228; State v. Anselmo, 46 Utah 137, 148 P. 1071; Martin v. State, 119 Ala. 1, 25 So. 255; Donnelly v. State, 26 N.J.L. 601; State v. Bonofiglio, 67 N.J.L. 239, 91 Am. St. 423, 52 A. 712, 54 A. 99; State v. Deliso, 75 N.J.L. 808, 69 A. 218, 222; State v. Clayton, 83 N.J.L. 673, 85 A. 173; State v. Foster, 130 N.C. 666, 89 Am. St. 876, 41 S.E. 284; State v. Banks, 143 N.C. 652, 57 S.E. 174; Bivens v. State, 11 Ark. 455, 461; Gilchrist v. State, 100 Ark. 330, 140 S.W. 260; People v. Moore, 8 Cal. 90, 93; People v. Nichol, 34 Cal. 211, 214; People v. Long, 39 Cal. 694, 696; People v. Maughs, 149 Cal. 253, 86 P. 187; Commonwealth v. Tucker, 189 Mass. 457, 76 N.E. 127, 7 L. R. A., N. S., 1056; State v. Phillips, 118 Iowa 660, 92 N.W. 876.)

Or that the intent, deliberation or premeditation need not exist for any length of time. (Parker v. State, 24 Wyo. 491, 161 P. 552.)

The court erred in giving instruction No. 33, in regard to the credibility of an impeached witness. (Rogers v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 226, 127 P. 365; Commonwealth v. Clune, 162 Mass. 206, 38 N.E. 435; State v. Musgrave, 43 W.Va. 672, 28 S.E. 813.)

The concurrence of will, deliberation and premeditation requisite for a first degree murder must not only precede, but must result in the killing. (People v. Maughs, 149 Cal. 253, 86 P. 187; Parker v. State, 24 Wyo. 491, 161 P. 552.)

It is improper to inform the jury as to the punishment for an offense or grade of an offense, excepting where the jury has the right to fix the punishment. (People v. Johns, 19 Ill.App. 367; People v. Prewett, 40 Cal.App. 416, 180 P. 844.)

It is error for counsel to state to the jury his personal opinion of the guilt of the accused. (State v. Webb, 254 Mo. 474, 162 S.W. 622, 628; Broznack v. State, 109 Ga. 514, 35 S.E. 123; Nixon v. State, 14 Ga.App. 261, 80 S.E. 513; Raggio v. People, 135 Ill. 533, 26 N.E. 377; Reed v. State, 66 Neb. 184, 92 N.W. 321; State v. Clark, 114 Minn. 342, 131 N.W. 369, 370; State v. Gunderson, 26 N.D. 294, 144 N.W. 659.)

Roy L. Black, Attorney General, Jas. L. Boone, Assistant, J. H. Hawley and E. S. Delana, Pros. Atty., for Respondent.

The court must give judgment without regard to technical errors, etc., which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties. (Secs. 9084, 9191, C. S.)

It is not error to admit in evidence the bloody effects of a deceased in order to establish the state's original case. (People v. Haydon, 18 Cal.App. 543, 123 P. 1102, 1114; State v. Moore, 80 Kan. 232, 102 P. 475; State v. Stansberry, 182 Iowa 908, 166 N.W. 359; State v. Porter, 276 Mo. 387, 207 S.W. 774; Watson v. State, 84 Tex. Cr. 115, 205 S.W. 662; Terry v. State, 203 Ala. 99, 82 So. 113; People v. Wolff, 182 Cal. 728, 190 P. 22; Sizemore v. Commonwealth, 189 Ky. 46, 224 S.W. 637; Locklear v. State, 17 Ala. App. 597, 87 So. 708; Larmon v. State (Fla.), 88 So. 471; State v. McKnight, 21 N.M. 14, 153 P. 76; McKinney v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. 31, 187 S.W. 960; Blazka v. State, 105 Neb. 13, 178 N.W. 832.)

Instructions must be read as a whole. (Kennon v. Gilmer, 5 Mont. 257, 51 Am. Rep. 45, 5 P. 847; State v. Corcoran, 7 Idaho 220, 61 P. 1034; State v. Bond, 12 Idaho 424, 86 P. 43; State v. Neil, 13 Idaho 539, 90 P. 860, 91 P. 318; Barrow v. B. R. Lewis Lbr. Co., 14 Idaho 698, 95 P. 682; Anderson v. Great Northern R. Co., 15 Idaho 513, 99 P. 91; Just v. Idaho Canal etc. Co., 16 Idaho 639, 133 Am. St. 140, 102 P. 381; Tilden v. Hubbard, 25 Idaho 677, 138 P. 1133; Osborn v. Cary, 28 Idaho 89, 152 P. 473; Whitney v. Cleveland, 13 Idaho 558, 91 P. 176; People v. Cleveland, 49 Cal. 578; People v. Armstrong, 114 Cal. 570, 46 P. 611; State v. Pettit, 33 Idaho 326, 193 P. 1015; 14 R. C. L., sec. 76, p. 820; State v. Curtis, 29 Idaho 724, 727, 161 P. 578; State v. Nolan, 31 Idaho 71, 169 P. 295; State v. Petrogalli, 34 Idaho 232, 200 P. 119; Reed v. State, 102 Ark. 525, 145 S.W. 206; Leech v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. 339, 139 S.W. 1147.)

It is not error to instruct that malice aforethought means an act is done with malice and premeditation. (Michie, Homicide, sec. 11; Thiede v. Utah 159 U.S. 510, 16 S.Ct. 62, 40 L.Ed. 237; Wharton, Homicide, 3d ed., sec. 82; State v. Vaughan, 200 Mo. 1, 98 S.W. 2; Clark v. Commonwealth, 111 Ky. 443, 63 S.W. 740; Green v. United States, 7 Ind. Ter. 733, 104 S.W. 1159; State v. Primrose, 2 Boyce (Del.), 164, 77 A. 717; Green v. United States, 2 Okla. Cr. 55 101 P. 112; note. 38 L. R. A., N. S., 1054.)

An inst ruction which states "malice includes not only anger, hatred and revenge but also any other unlawful and unjustifiable motive" is not erroneous, especially when read with the balance of the instructions. (State v. Wetter, 11 Idaho 433, 83 P. 341; Commonwealth v. Webster, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 295, 52 Am. Dec. 711; Jackson v. People, 18 Ill. 269; State v. Dolan, 17 Wash. 499, 50 P. 472; McCoy v. People, 175 Ill. 224, 51 N.E. 777; State v. Privitt, 175 Mo. 207, 75 S.W. 457.)

An entire charge on a particular point must be read together. (People v. Bernard, 2 Idaho 193, 10 P. 30; Loy v. State, 26 Wyo. 381, 185 P. 796; Johnson v. State (Tex. Cr.), 216 S.W. 192.)

The time between the intent to kill and the act of killing need not exist any length of time. (State v. Shuff, 9 Idaho 115, 72 P. 664; People v. Sanchez, 24 Cal. 17; People v. Yee Foo, 4 Cal.App. 730, 89 P. 450; People v. Bealoba, 17 Cal. 389; People v. Machuca, 158 Cal. 62, 109 P. 886; People v. Suesser, 142 Cal. 354, 75 P. 1093; People v. Nichol, 34 Cal. 211, 215; People v. Iams, 57 Cal. 115; People v. Williams, 43 Cal. 344; People v. Webber, 149 Cal. 325, 86 P. 671; State v. Thomas, 118 N.C. 1113, 24 S.E. 431; Perugi v. State, 104 Wis. 230, 76 Am. St. 865, 80 N.W. 593; People v. Clark, 7 N.Y. 385; Donnelly v. State, 26 N.J.L. 463; Thaniel v. Commonwealth (Va.), 111 S.E. 259; McAdams v. State, 25 Ark. 405; Ross v. State, 8 Wyo. 351, 57 P. 924; Commonwealth v. Reed, 234 Pa. 573, 83 A. 601.)

Instruction No. 28 is correct. (State v. Moon, 20 Idaho 202.)

An instruction is not erroneous which charges that the jury may disregard the testimony of any witness who has wilfully testified falsely on any material matter unless the evidence of such witness be corroborated by other witnesses or evidence. (State v. Morris, 40 Utah 431, 122 P. 380; State v. Reese, 43 Utah 447 135 P. 270; State v. Due. 44 Utah 190, 138 P. 1193; State v. Hillstrom, 46 Utah 341, 150 P. 935; Cole v. State (Okla. Cr.), 195 P. 901; Peak v. People, 76 Ill. 289; People v. LeMorte, 289 Ill. 11, 124 N.E. 301; Miller v. State, 106 Wis. 156, 81 N.W. 1020.)

The fact that the court may have given an erroneous instruction is not necessarily reversible error. It must be assumed that the jury was composed of reasonable men, of average intelligence, that they based their verdict on the evidence, and that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 practice notes
  • State v. Aragon, No. 14771
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • June 22, 1984
    ...question is whether, when so read and construed, it can reasonably be held that the jury may have been misled by it." State v. Dong Sing, 35 Idaho 616, 627, 208 P. 860, 862 (1922). Lawyers, judges, and legal scholars struggle mightily with the terminology attendant to jurisprudence. Jurors ......
  • State v. Dillon, No. 10215
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • June 25, 1970
    ...when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show, an abandoned and malignant heart.' 50 35 Idaho 616, 623-624, 208 P. 860 51 State v. Brooks, 49 Idaho 404, 409, 288 P. 894, 897 (1930), cited in State v. Anstine, 91 Idaho 169, 172, 418 P.2d 210, ......
  • State v. Salhus, 7377
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • January 9, 1948
    ...P. 103; State v. Gilbert, 8 Idaho 346, 69 P. 62, 1 Ann.Cas. 280; State v. Nolan, 31 Idaho 71, at page 82, 169 P. 295; State v. Dong Sing, 35 Idaho 616, at page 630, 208 P. 860; State v. Bubis, 39 Idaho 376, 227 P. 384. [68 Idaho 89] Instructions Nos. 3a, [7] 9, [8] and 11 [9] are assigned [......
  • State v. Wilson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • November 14, 1925
    ...as a whole correctly state the law, the judgment will be affirmed. (State v. Cosler, 39 Idaho 519, 228 P. 277; State v. Dong Sing, 35 Idaho 616, 208 P. 860.) It is not error for the court to instruct the jury that there need be no appreciable space of time between the intention [41 Idaho 62......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
38 cases
  • State v. Aragon, No. 14771
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • June 22, 1984
    ...question is whether, when so read and construed, it can reasonably be held that the jury may have been misled by it." State v. Dong Sing, 35 Idaho 616, 627, 208 P. 860, 862 (1922). Lawyers, judges, and legal scholars struggle mightily with the terminology attendant to jurisprudence. Jurors ......
  • State v. Dillon, No. 10215
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • June 25, 1970
    ...when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show, an abandoned and malignant heart.' 50 35 Idaho 616, 623-624, 208 P. 860 51 State v. Brooks, 49 Idaho 404, 409, 288 P. 894, 897 (1930), cited in State v. Anstine, 91 Idaho 169, 172, 418 P.2d 210, ......
  • State v. Salhus, 7377
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • January 9, 1948
    ...P. 103; State v. Gilbert, 8 Idaho 346, 69 P. 62, 1 Ann.Cas. 280; State v. Nolan, 31 Idaho 71, at page 82, 169 P. 295; State v. Dong Sing, 35 Idaho 616, at page 630, 208 P. 860; State v. Bubis, 39 Idaho 376, 227 P. 384. [68 Idaho 89] Instructions Nos. 3a, [7] 9, [8] and 11 [9] are assigned [......
  • State v. Wilson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • November 14, 1925
    ...as a whole correctly state the law, the judgment will be affirmed. (State v. Cosler, 39 Idaho 519, 228 P. 277; State v. Dong Sing, 35 Idaho 616, 208 P. 860.) It is not error for the court to instruct the jury that there need be no appreciable space of time between the intention [41 Idaho 62......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT