People v. Heuss

YORK, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of the crime of forgery, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

The defendant was convicted upon both direct and circumstantial evidence. There was undoubtedly sufficient evidence to justify the verdict of the jury.

Counsel for appellant insists that appellant was entitled to an instruction to the effect that, in order to convict upon circumstantial evidence, it is necessary not only that all the circumstances concur to show that the defendant committed the crime charged, but it must also be shown that all of these circumstances are inconsistent with any other rational conclusion

;

that it is not sufficient that the circumstances proven

[682]

coincide with, account for and, therefore, render probable the hypothesis sought to be established by the prosecution, but they must exclude to a moral certainty every other hypothesis, except the single one of guilt, or the jury must find the defendant “not guilty.”

The court did instruct the jury as follows: “In order to warrant a conviction for crime on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances taken together should be of a nature and tendency leading on the whole to a satisfactory conclusion and producing in effect a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused and no one else committed the offense charged, and it is the invariable rule and law that to warrant a conviction upon circumstantial evidence alone,

such facts and circumstances must be shown as are consistent with the guilt of the party charged.”

But the appellant maintains that this is erroneous, for the reason that the words

“and inconsistent with his innocence”

are omitted.

In addition to the foregoing instruction to the jury, the court also quoted section 1096 of the Penal Code, as amended in 1927 (Stats. 1927, p. 1039), which provides that a defendant in a criminal action is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved, and that in case of a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, he is entitled to acquittal. Section 1096a of the same code specifically provides that no other instruction on the presumption of innocence or defining reasonable doubt need be given. The