People v. Gilbert

Bobbery—Verdict.—Upon the trial of an information for robbery, the verdict was as follows: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty as charged in the information;” and it was claimed that the crime of robbery charged in the information, also involved the crime of grand larceny, of which it was within the power of the jury to find the defendant guilty, and that the verdict should have specified which of these two crimes, robbery or grand larceny, the defendant was found guilty of.

Held: It is no argument against the sufficiency of the verdict in this case, that robbery includes larceny, and that under an indictment and prosecution for the former, a defendant may be convicted of the latter crime. The jury in this case has found the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment, and the charge in the indictment is the crime of robbery; and we do not, therefore, discover any uncertainty in the verdict.

Id.—Instruction—Relevancy of Instructions—Reasonable Doubt— Circumstantial Evidence—Hypothesis—Definition.—The Court refused to give the eighth instruction asked by defendant, which was as follows: “The hypothesis contended for by the prosecution must be established to an absolute moral certainty, to the entire exclusion of any rational probability of any other hypothesis being true, or the jury must find the defendant not guilty”—the refusal being placed upon the ground that “ this is not a case of circumstantial evidence, and the instruction is not responsive to the testimony in the case.” The evidence given was that of the party robbed, and was direct and positive, and not circumstantial.

Held: Where all the evidence in the case is direct and positive, and the defendant’s guilt is in no manner dependent upon an agreement of circumstances, there is no such thing as a hypothesis, in the theory of the prosecution, and an instruction based upon such a theory becomes irrelevant and immaterial. There was nothing in the case to warrant such an instruction, and therefore it was proper for the Court to refuse it.

Id.—Id.—Id.—Id.—Id.—Id.—Id.—When there is no statement or bill of exceptions embodying the evidence or declaring its purport and tendency, the appellate Court will presume in favor of the correctness of the charge of the Judge to the jury, unless the charge is manifestly erroneous under any and every conceivable state of facts.

Id —Id.—Id.—Id.—Id.—The Court refused to give the following instruction asked by defendant: “In order to convict the defendant upon evidence of circumstances, it is necessary, not only that all the circumstances concur to show that he committed the crime charged, but that they are inconsistent with any other rational conclusion. It is not sufficient that the circumstances proved 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 but the single one of guilt, or the jury must find the defendant not guilty.”