People v. Thompson

PULLEN, P. J.

Appellant Charles Thompson, together with another, was charged by an information with the crime of burglary, the information alleging that upon a day certain' defendant did then and there burglariously enter a certain basement under a particular dwelling house.

The defendant was convicted and now prosecutes this appeal upon the following grounds:

1. Error of the court in refusing to give a particular instruction.

2. Error in allowing the amendment to the information.

3. Insufficiency of the evidence, and

4. That the verdict was contrary to the evidence.

Defendant requested the giving of the following instruction :'

“The circumstances which will amount to the degree of proof sufficient to warrant a conviction can never be previously defined. The legal test which has been applied is that the evidence, when considered as a whole, must establish the defendant’s guilt so clearly and so conclusively as not to admit of any reasonable theory consistent with his innocence.

'

‘ ‘

Circumstances which are consistent with an innocent purpose cannot be said to have a tendency to connect and implicate the defendant with the commission of the offense charged. ’ ’

This was refused by the court on the ground that the principles therein contained were already covered by the instructions given. This we believe is correct. The court gave the following instruction which seems to adequately care for the situation pointed out by appellant in his proposed instruction.

[361]

“In a criminal case, the jury should, not find the defendant guilty of any offense unless his guilt is established by the evidence to a moral certainty and beyond all reasonable doubt, and the burden is on the prosecution to establish such guilt.

“The law presumes every man innocent until his guilt is established to a moral certainty and beyond all reasonable doubt, and this presumption attaches at every stage of the case, and to every fact essential to a conviction.