title:
Angus McClaine, Plaintiff in error vs Territory of Washington, Defendant in error Brief of Defendant in error.
title:
575
creator:
Territory of Washington
contributor:
J. B. Metcalfe
date:
1889-01
publisher:
Washington State Supreme Court
type:
Criminal
subject:
Criminal
language:
eng
format:
application/pdf
description:
Prior History: Error to District Court, Thurston County.Arson – Murder – Instructions – Under § 823, Code of Wash. T., as amended by Laws 1885-6, p. 77, it is unnecessary, in charging the crime of arson, to allege that the dwelling house set fire to was used and occupied as a place of abode by any person or persons.In an indictment for murder, the allegation “that by means of said setting fire to, and the burning of said dwelling house as aforesaid, one Harry Connor, who was then and there known by said Angus McClaine to be occupying one of the rooms in said dwelling house, and known by said Angus McClaine to be present in said room,” etc., is sufficiently direct and certain to charge the defendant with knowledge of the presence of deceased on the premises at the time they were set fire to by defendant.Under § 823, Code of Wash. T., defining the crime of arson, and providing, among other things, that “should the death of any person ensue therefrom known to be occupying or present in said premises at the time such premises are willfully set fire to, the offender… shall be deemed guilty of murder in the first degree,” an instruction to the jury, in a prosecution thereunder for murder in the first degree, that “you must find from the evidence that the deceased was in the house at the time of the fire; that the defendant knew he was there, and that the deceased came to his death in said house by reason of the burning of the house,” is erroneous, as under such an instruction the jury might have convicted the defendant, if the deceased was present in the house at any time during the fire, without regard to the fact as to whether defendant knew he was present in the house at the time it was fired.The court, upon the trial, gave the following instruction: “The prosecution must make out its case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is to say, must prove the house, of five dollars at least in value, was burned at or about the date charged; that the defendant di this purposely; that the deceased was in the house when he purposely set fire to it. And if about any of these essential facts there is any reasonable doubt you must acquit.” Held, that the instruction had a tendency to mislead the jury, as all the essential elements of the crime are not given therein.
relation:
McClaine v. Territory, 1 Wash. 345 (1890)
relation:
25 P. 453
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
