title:
Jochim Henry Timmerman Plaintiff in error vs The Territory of Washington Defendant in error, Brief of Defendant in error
creator:
Territory of Washington
contributor:
H. Dustin
contributor:
Dunbar
contributor:
Smith
date:
1888-01-01
publisher:
Supreme Court of the Territory of Washington
type:
Criminal
subject:
Criminal
language:
eng
format:
application/pdf
description:
Prior History: ERROR to the District Court holding terms at Goldendale. Fourth District.All the facts necessary for the understanding of the points made and decided are fully stated in the opinion of the court.Indictment – Sufficiency of – Murder – An indictment charging that “H. T. is accused by the grand jury of the Territory of Washington, for the county of Klickitat, by this indictment, of the crime of murder in the first degree, committed as follows: He, the said H. T., in the said county of Klickitat, on the third day of October, 1886, purposely, and of his deliberate and premeditated malice, killed W. S. by then and there purposely and of his premeditated malice shooting and mortally wounding the said W. S. with a pistol which he, the said H. T., then and there held in his hand and from which mortal wound the said W. S. instantly died,” sufficiently charges the crime of murder in the first degree, and will support judgment of death in case of conviction. (Leonard v. Territory, 2 Wash., p. 381, reaffirmed.)Jurors – Challenge of – Error – Alleged error by District Court in overruling challenges for cause to jurors will not be reviewed in Supreme Court, unless the evidence is brought up.Criminal Practice – Murder – Verdict – Form of – In the trial of an indictment charging the crime of murder in the first degree, a verdict in the following form: “We, the jury in the case of The Territory of Washington against J. H. T., find the defendant guilty,” is in substantial compliance with section 1103 of the Code, and is a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, although the defendant might have been convicted under the same indictment of murder in the second degree or of manslaughter.
description:
Evidence – Corpus Delicti – Proof of – While in capital cases the corpus delicti, like every other material fact, must probed beyond a reasonable doubt, it need not be proved by direct evidence. The law is satisfied when so proved by either circumstantial or direct evidence. Instructions – Refusal of – Reasonable Doubt – When the court has rightly and fully instructed the jury upon the question of reasonable doubt, to which no exception was taken, it is not error for the court to refuse an instruction upon the same subject asked for by the defendant, although the latter is correct in law.Same – Same – An instruction, asked for by defendant, and refused by the court, as follows: “When circumstances alone are relied upon by the territory for conviction, each and every circumstance must be consistent with the other, and with the whole chain; and each and all must point to the defendant exclusively as the guilty agent; and every link of the chain of circumstances must be so complete and consistent with the guilt of the defendant as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of his innocence, and so perfect and complete as to establish is guilt to a moral certainty”: Held, that the instruction was rightfully refused, because liable to mislead if given as asked, for the circumstances might point to two persons as the guilty parties, the defendant being one of the two; or one or more of the circumstances proved might have no reference whatever to the defendant, or to the crime charged, or form no part of “the chain,” or not point to any particular part connected with the crime, and therefore justifying the jury in not considering the same at all.Judgment – Death Sentence – Execution of =- Irregularity – Criminal Practice – It is irregular for a death sentence to fix a specific day for its execution. The time of execution should be fixed in the warrant, and not in the judgment. But this irregularity is mere surplusage and does not affect the validity of the judgement.
relation:
Timmerman v. Territory, 3 Wash. Terr. 445 (1888)
relation:
17 P. 624
rights:
These materials are public records. Please see Washington State Court Rules: General Rules 31 for details https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/GR/GA_GR_31_00_00.pdf
