State v. O'Brien
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Bingham County. Where there is no evidence to support an instruction, the giving of such is an error. (Ellis v. Jeans, 7 Cal. 417; People v. Byrnes, 30 Cal. 208; Dowell v. Williams, 33 Kan. 319, 6 Pac. 603; Peineman v. Sachs, 33 Kan. 621, 52 Am.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Bingham County. Where there is no evidence to support an instruction, the giving of such is an error. (Ellis v. Jeans, 7 Cal. 417; People v. Byrnes, 30 Cal. 208; Dowell v. Williams, 33 Kan. 319, 6 Pac. 603; Peineman v. Sachs, 33 Kan. 621, 52 Am. Rep. 547, 7 Pae. 225.) In order to justify the inference of legal guilt from circumstantial evidence, the existence of the inculpatory facts must be absolutely incompatible with the innocence of the accused, and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of guilt. (Wills on Circumstantial…
1Opinion of the CourtMorgan, J.
The three defendants were indicted for the murder of David Stoddard. Defendant O’Brien not having been apprehended, defendants Mike and Bestone were tried before the court and a jury. The jury found the two defendants guilty of murder in the second degree, and they were sentenced to ten years each in the penitentiary. The defendants appeal from this judgment and from the order overruling the motion for a new trial. The following errors are assigned: First, the giving of the following instruction, viz.: “If the jury believe from all the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State v. LevyIdaho Supreme Court · 1904
- State v. NesbitIdaho Supreme Court · 1895
- State v. McMahanIdaho Supreme Court · 1937
- Jacobs v. ShenonIdaho Supreme Court · 1895
- State v. McMahanIdaho Supreme Court · 1937