Thompson v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 18 June 1891 |
| Citation | 13 S.E. 304,88 Va. 45 |
| Parties | Thompson v. Commonwealth. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Robbery—Competency or Jurors — Evidence— Witnesses—Instructions.
1. On atrial for robbing a woman at 10:30 o'clock at night, as she was on her way from a depot carrying her valise, the testimony of a policeman, offered by the defense, that he had seen a colored man in the yard of the railroad at i o'clock on the following morning, was irrelevant,
and properly excluded.
2. Where the jury were instructed to find for defendant, unless the state proved everything essential to the establishment of the charge to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt, it was not error to charge, immediately afterwards, that "the burden rests upon the commonwealth to make out its case, * * * to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt, but, where the accused
* * * attempts to prove an alibi., * * * the burden of proving the alibi rests upon him. "
8. Having subpoenaed a witness who did not appear, defendant, on the court's suggestion, obtained a rule against him, but the officer returned that the witness was sick. Defendant's motion to adjourn was overruled, on the ground, as stated by the judge, that when the case was called in the morning no motion for continuance was made because of the absence of such witness. Defendant made no objection to this statement, nor did he show that the evidence of such witness would not be merely cumulative. Held, the court was justified in proceeding with the trial.
4. The persons filling the offices of treasurer and councilman of a city are not disqualified to serve in the Hustings court thereof, in a criminal case.
5. Code Va. 1887, § 3991, providing that, "in a prosecution for a misdemeanor, the name of the prosecutor, if there be one, * * * shall bo written at the foot of the presentment, indictment, or information, " does not apply to an indictment for a felony found by the grand jury.
6. It is in the discretion of the court to limit the argument to two hours upon each side.
Error to Hustings court of Bristol; Rhka, Judge.
Paul, Peters, Wood & Sutherland, for plaintiff in error.
The Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
The plaintiff in error was indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced in the hustings court of the city of Bristol for the crime of felonious assault and robbery; and the judgment of the said court was in accordance with the verdict of the jury, which fixed the term of his confinement in the penitentiary for eight years. The record of the proceedings upon the trial presents several bills of exception taken by the accused, Thompson. The first bill of exceptions objects to the refusal of the court to exclude from the venire and from the jury J. L. C. Smith and George W Wolfe, who were duly summoned as venire-men, upon the ground that the said Smith was treasurer of the city of Bristol, and the said Wolfe was a member of the council of the city of Bristol. There is nothing in this objection, and the 'trial court did not err in overruling the motion to exclude them. They were qualified jurors, and the record shows that they were selected according to law.
The second bill of exceptions objects to the ruling of the trial court as to the relevancy of the evidence of H. S. Price. Thompson, the accused, was charged with the assault and robbery of one Mary Abrahams, on the night of her arrival at the depot of the Norfolk & Western Railroad passenger train, in the city of Bristol, at 10:30 o'clock that night, at a place about one-half a mile from the depot, as she was on her way, carrying her valise, to her brother's house, upon a dark and rainy night; and the commonwealth's attorney objected to the introduction of the fact that the policeman Price had seen a colored man in the yard of the Norfolk & Western Railroad at 3 o'clock in the morning succeeding the night of the alleged robbery; which objection the court sustained, and excluded the statement. It could have, so far as the exception discloses, no bearing or relevancy upon the issue to be tried by the jury, and it was properly excluded.
The bill of exceptions No. 3...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Wood
...v. State, 66 Tex.Cr.R. 489, 491, 147 S.W. 580; State v. Parker, 104 Vt. 494, 497, 498, 162 A. 696 (deputy sheriff); Thompson v. Commonwealth, 88 Va. 45, 46, 13 S.E. 304 (city treasurer and 10 See United States v. Cartacho, Fed.Cas.No.14,738; Respublica v. Mesca, 1 Dall. 73, 1 L.Ed. 42; Peop......
-
State v. Costales.
...had been active in the prosecution.” Under the rule prevailing in most jurisdictions, Candelaria was a qualified juror. Thompson v. Commonwealth, 88 Va. 45, 13 S. E. 304; State v. Lewis, 50 Nev. 212, 255 P. 1002; 35 C. J. 313. However, it is sufficient to say that it is not shown that an ob......
-
Cooper v. Com., Record No. 080919.
...906, 907 (2006). We have visited the appropriateness of alibi instructions in several previous cases starting with Thompson v. Commonwealth, 88 Va. 45, 13 S.E. 304 (1891), and find that we have expressed a variety of views in the law on the subject. In Thompson, involving a charge of robber......
-
Draper v. Commonwealth
...numerous cases. The learned judge of the trial court in the instant case evidently acted upon the authority of Thompson v. Commonwealth, 88 Va. 45, 47, 13 S. E. 304, in which it was held that an instruction for the commonwealth, containing the identical language objected to in this case, wa......