State v. Williams
| Citation | 76 Me. 480 |
| Parties | STATE OF MAINE v. JOSEPH A. WILLIAMS. |
| Decision Date | 05 December 1884 |
| Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US) |
ON EXCEPTIONS.
Frank M. Higgins, county attorney, for the state.
Hamilton and Haley, for the defendant.
The case was not argued at law court.
Indictment for adultery. The defendant testified in his own behalf.
The defendant excepted to the refusal of the presiding justice to give the jury several requested instructions.
(1.) That the jury are to believe the story of the respondent, if they can reconcile it with the facts of the case.
(2.) That the law presumes the honesty of the parties, and jurors are to seek to construe their testimony to be the truth.
Touching these questions the presiding justice did charge the jury; the facts The instructions given are full and comprehensive upon the part of the case to which the exceptions relate. They gave the jury clearly to understand that it was their duty to weigh all the evidence and give the defendant the benefit of all reasonable doubt; no further or more explicit instruction was required. The defendant had no right to have an instruction given in such phraseology as he saw fit to ask, provided sufficient instruction was given, touching the matter requested, to clearly lay before the jury their duty in the premises. Foye v. Southard, 64 Me. 389; Hovey v. Hobson, 55 Me. 256.
(3.) That as there is only one charge in the indictment, no other evidence is to be taken into consideration of other acts to sustain the charge.
Evidence tending to show illicit intercourse by the defendant with the same person charged in the indictment, both before and after the day laid, is competent to prove the relation and mutual disposition of the parties. State v. Witham, 72 Me. 531.
(4.) That the jury must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent committed the crime upon the day alleged.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Battles v. State
...v. State, 52 Ala. 24; Crane v. People, 65 Ill. App. 492, affirmed in 168 Ill. 395, 48 N. E. 54; State v. Witham, 72 Me. 531; State v. Williams, 76 Me. 480; State v. Way, 5 Neb. 283; State v. Robertson, 121 N. C. 551, 28 S. E. 59. The following observations upon the general subject occurring......
-
State v. Hayward
...the reason that the fact of illicit sexual relations being once established makes an attempt at their resumption more probable. State v. Williams, 76 Me. 480; v. Markins, 95 Ind. 464; People v. Jenness, 5 Mich. 305; State v. Lapage, supra. (4) When an extraneous crime forms part of the res ......
-
State v. DeLong
...of prior acts similar to charged offense admissible to show relationship between parties in prosecution for adultery); State v. Williams, 76 Me. 480, 481 (1884) (same); State v. Acheson, 91 Me. 240, 244-45, 39 A. 570, 571-72 (1898) (evidence of subsequent act similar to charged offense admi......
-
State v. O'Donnell
...42 P. 1; McLeod v. State, 35 Ala. 395; People v. Patterson, 102 Cal. 239, 36 P. 436; Lefforge v. State, 129 Ind. 551, 29 N.E. 34; State v. Williams, 76 Me. 480; Com. Nichols, 114 Mass. 285; People v. Skutt, 96 Mich. 449, 56 N.W. 11; State v. Marvin, 35 N.H. 22; State v. Pippin, 88 N.C. 646;......