(Download) "State v. Bean" by Supreme Court of Montana # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: State v. Bean
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 17, 1959
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 51 KB
Description
CRIMINAL LAW ? BURGLARY ? TRIAL ? ACCOMPLICES. 1. Criminal Law ? Trial ? Judges comments. A judges comments as he pronounced sentence which dealt with question of Parole Board were not prejudicial to defendant. 2. Criminal Law ? Instructions. In prosecution for burglary in the first degree, defendant could not complain of instruction which stated that either direct or circumstantial evidence "will support a verdict of guilt if it carries the convincing quality required by law" on ground that quoted language should have been eliminated by inserting "if circumstances are consistent with each other and inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis, except that of guilt" where defendant did not offer such an instruction. 3. Criminal Law ? Instruction. Instruction that there are two classes of evidence, direct and circumstantial, and that either "will support a verdict of guilty if it carries the convincing quality required by law" was not erroneous for including the quoted language and for not inserting "if circumstances are consistent with each other and inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis, except that of guilt" where suggested instruction would be applicable only if the only evidence was circumstantial which was not the situation in the case involved. 4. Criminal Law. The court must instruct the jury on all matters of law necessary for its information. 5. Burglary ? Accomplices. An accomplice to burglary need not make an entry, if entry is made by one of the participants. 6. Burglary ? Instructions. Instruction defining the word "enter" as including entrance of offender into house, etc., was not erroneous on ground that there was no evidence that defendant entered the motel and that by giving of instruction it eliminated any question as to defendant being an accomplice, and by implication stating that if co-defendant "entered" then defendant was guilty. 7. Criminal Law ? Instructions. An instruction that an accomplice is one who knowingly, voluntarily, and with common intent with principal offender, unites in commission of crime, etc., was not erroneous on theory that there was no evidence to make defendant an accomplice.