State v. Blue
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Audrain Circuit Court. — Hon. E. M. Hughes, Judge. (1) The court’s instruction defining reasonable doubt to be “a substantial doubt growing out of and consistent with the evidence,” is erroneous, and as the defendant offered no evidence in this case is peculiarly hurtful and should be held reversible error. The doubt may grow out of the evidence or the lack of evidence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Audrain Circuit Court. — Hon. E. M. Hughes, Judge. (1) The court’s instruction defining reasonable doubt to be “a substantial doubt growing out of and consistent with the evidence,” is erroneous, and as the defendant offered no evidence in this case is peculiarly hurtful and should be held reversible error. The doubt may grow out of the evidence or the lack of evidence. The words “growing out of and consistent with the evidence” imply that the doubt must be such an one as is created or produced by proof. The definition is too narrow and excludes all reasonable doubt that may arise…
1Opinion of the CourtBurgess, J.
The defendant, indicted in the circuit court of Audrain county in connection with one Wilbur Washington, for burglary in the second degree and larceny, was, on a separate trial awarded him, convicted of burglary as charged, and his punishment fixed at three years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary. Washington had prior to the trial of defendant, been tried and acquitted. The case is before us on defendant’s appeal.
The facts are about as follow:
On the twenty-third day of March, 1895, a building belonging to E. B. Norris in Mexico, Missouri, was burglarized, and two pairs of pants, two vests,…
2Cited by10 opinions
- State v. DenisonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1944
- State v. TempleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- State v. GarrisonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- State v. BatemanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- State v. SacreSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.