,1"EDEBAL
'177'jll·Story;Eq. J :409. ,If could ipsist that Pavis is liable the:courtwduldbe justified in refusing to the latter to use its process for compelling Seeley to pay the whole judgment debt without offering to do equity·.. As there is no contribution. between wrong-doers there is no foundation, for such a claim. It must bl:} held that Davis acquired what he bought, and succeeds to all the rights :ofBalliett-to use the judgment against Seeley, including that of collect. ing' it by an execution., The order of the district 9Qurt is therefore' reversed.
UNITED STATES 'l1. KING. ,
(Oircuit Oourt, E. D. New York. February 24,1888.)
1;
Rev. St. U B. 5389, provides that "e:very person who commits murder within fort . * . under the ex()lusive jurisdiction of the United States. * * it· shall suffer death." Held, the statute not defining the offense of mur· der; thai the common law, as it was in England before the Revolution, and as. it has since been interpreted in our courtS, must be looked to for a definition, and as ther" defined, murderiswhere a person of sound memory and discretion unlawfullYand feloniously kills any. human being in the peace of the sov· erei/l;n; with malice prepense or aforethought, express or implied.
MILITARY REllERVATION-DEFINITION.
B.' BAME--+-BoUNDARmll OF REllERVATION. ." ' · .' On the of an.indictment for murder alleged to have been committed at Fort, JI/tmilton, in New York harbor. it Was in evidence that the fatal shot was. fired 100 feet inside a certa.in fence on theUne of Hamilton avenue. Theprose· cQtionintroduced a deed:to the United States of a certain plot of ground, and also, the /l<ct the New York covEJring the same plot. rhis was. followed b1 testimony that the military aqthorities of the United States had for' years past, exercised, acts of ownetlJhip and jurisdiction over the same ground; which was in the village of FOl:t Hamilton, adjacent to and inside of the.sllid.fenc,e. Certain maps of the premises. sworn to by those who made them, were then put in evidence. Hefd; that if the jury believed the testi· mony·of those who made the maps, and also believed that the natural and artiticial monuments that they found on the soil when the maps were made co,' incide(Un location with the monuments, artificial and natural, that were placed there when the deed was given and th'e act of cession was passed, they were warranted in,finding that the fence. on the line of Hamilton avenue was sub· stantially coincident with the.proper.ty·line and the line of jurisdiction of the United States. ' , . 3. SAME-ARTlctlilsOF WAR. J
. Where the man kllled is a civilian,;aud the killing is done in a government whenolf,dlltr, requests bearing subject of fort, by a.pnv!'te the ground bemg a military post, and of the rules governmg the servee, the articles of war, etc., have no bearirlg upon the case, and are properly refu3ed. . .,
4..BAME.L.BREACil: OF MILITAUY Rl<lGULATION.
.., It:appellred,upon the trial ofa priVate soldier charged with a murder com· upon ,a that the soldiers stationed there were frequently allowed togo out'an'd.come in without a pass. It willi also in evidence :that there, were many'saloonsJn the neighborhood; Held. thai; ;thisj fact, though "to the prejudice of, good order and.military disciplinEJ," wit,hiJ;l tp,e meaning, of 1\rticles ,of war, (article 62:J should not work to the preludiCe'bftl;1e accused, .who 'had 'avaUed himself of the privilege· on. the " ,'night oJlthemurder. '. ", :, , ..',' , ;
UNITED STATES tI.' K1NG.
803
I.
'SAME-'JU8TIFIABLE EtOHrOIDE-WlIAT CONSTITUTES.
W., had !\ttacked one M., a member olthe regtmentto which K. the accused, was attach,e4 as a private, and in the course of the atfrayhad pursued him into the government reservation a,t Fort Hamilton, in New York harbor, where he got him down. and beat him so that M. cried out, "Murder!" and "Don't kill mel" K., who was a friend of M., and also upon goodterniil with W., saw the attack upon M., and heard his cries. He hastened to his quarters, got a rifle and two cartridges,-one ball and one blank,-and returning to the place of the encounter. Which M. had left, he saw W., who was ,6 powerful ,man, and aggressive when in li9uor, as he then was. following' M. up. He called to W. to leave the reservatIOn, and did not load his piece until W., who continued to advance with a knife in his hand, and with threats that he was going "to do him[K.] up," was within eight feet of him. W. came t,ln 80 rapidly that K. had no chance to raise his rille, and he only discharged it wllen W. wasagaihst the muzzle, and at the moment of the discharge, the piece had not reaChed the horizontal, but was held just above the hip. The load was the ball cartridge, and W. was killed. The plea was justifiable hom· icide. Held, thll.t to support the plea it was necessary that K. must have reo treated as far as he coum have done with safety to himself; that the danger of death or grievous bodily harm to himself or M. must have been aPPiLrently imminen,t, and that K.'s belief all to the character ofthe danger must have been honest, and founded upon grounds reasonable under the circumstance's.l, '
8.unt--'-MANSLAUGHTER.
Theditference between manslaughter and excusabte homicide is this: MIn homicide the slayer could not escape if he would; in manslaughter he would not escape if he could. II Where hltoxicatioil at the moment is setup as a defense to a charge of mur· der, it is ,for the jury; to, determine whether, or not the accused was at that time capi\ble"of upecit!c intent, to take life. s ' BAME-EvIDENCE-RES GESTAe. ,
'1.
8.
SinCe the admission of the testimony of the accused in his own behalf, the rule of rdIJ geallB, as applied to his own declarations, is not so rigidly enforced, the jury being properly cl1arged as to ita, weight. S ' .,
,
·· BAME-DEPLARATIONS OF ACCUSED.
No weight is to be given' to a declaration by the accused,unlessthejuryare satisfied that itw8!l made at a time when it was forced out as the utterance of truth br the particular event and at a period of time so closely connected with the transaction that there has been no opportunity for subsequent reflection or determination as to whi\tit might or might not be wise for the declarant to say.3 ,A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason, and one which is reasonable in view of all the evidence.· DOUBT.
,,10; ,
lAs to when a homicide is justifiable, see, v. Robertson, (Cal.) 8 Pll,o. I1I1d note; State,v. Donnelly, (Iowa,) W 1'1. W. Rep. 369, and note; Darbey v. 8 S. E. Rep. 663; Lynch v. State, .(Tex. 6 S. W. Rep. 190; Stanley v. Com., (Ky.) Id.155j Duncan v. State, (Ark.) Id. I&.l, Falhn v. State, (Ala.) 8 South.,Rep. 525. , -VOluntBry intoxication is no excuse for a crime; but evidence of drunkenness!s 00missible up<;ln the q,uestion pf the j.ntent of the defendant, where intent is anelemeIit ,in the c'onstltution of the ofrense Statev. Lowe, (Mo.) 5S. W. Rep. 8811 ; State v. Mowry, {Kan.) 15 Pac. Rep. 282; 13uckhannon v. Com., (Ky.) 5 S. W. Rep. 358, and ,note. 1.A:s to when a declaration is admiSaible as part of the res gestal, see Dismultesv, State, (Ala.) 8 Bouth. Rep.671.. .' ·A doubt is one for which a sensible man can give a good reaaonj based on evi4ell,ce or want of evidence., It is such a doubt as a sensible man would act upon, decline to act upon, in his own concerns. U. S. v. Jones, 81 Fed. Rep. 718. Respecting "l'1N¥l9ll,l1o'ble doubt" in cr1mi,nalcases, see Knarr's Appeal, (Pa.) II Atl. Rep. 878'; v,. iLee Bare Bo, (Cal.) 14 Pac. Rep. 810; v. Statel. (Tex.) 5 E!. W. Rep: 175., ,Wbite, v. Btate, (,Tex.), : B. W. ReP,.710" and, note,J.'U, B., v. Jackson, 29,F,ad. 8 ,BA>P. /lOS, ,and note; People V'. :Kernaghan,(Cal.) 14: PSQ. J.Wp. 566; Cowan ,v. Btate, Rep. 570j Kidd Y. State, . (Neb.) 85 N. W. Rep. 405,; State v. Robinson, (S. C.) 4 B. . (Ala.l'S SOuth: Rep. '42; StB.tev. 'Maher, (lowe.,) 37 N}W. Rop.ll. · ' State,
804
FEDERAL REPORTER..
Indictment for murder, under Rev. St. U. S. § 5339. That section provides that "every person who commits murder within any fort, arse· nal, dock-yard, magazine, or in any other place or district of country under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, * * * shall suffer death." Francis H. King, the accused, a private in the Fifth artillery, U. S. A., stationed at Fort Hamilton, New York harbor, was indicted for the murder pf Ryan H. Willis, a civilian. The indictment was presented in the district court, and by order under Rev. St. U. S. § 1039, remitted t? the circuit court for triaL The facts in evidence were briefly as follows: About 11 :30 P. M. of November 26, 1887, Willis, while upon Hamilton avenue, a public thoroughfare adjoining the government resassaulted one Marshall, an enlisted man attached to prisoner's regiment as a bandsman. He struck Marshall one or two heavy blows, the latter broke away, climbed over the fence, and had gotten 20 feet beyond it upon the reservati?n when Willis, who had followed in pursuit, came up with him, kaocked him down, and, holding him. on the ground,continued to batter and pound him till three ofWillis' friends pulled him off, and an acquaintance of Marshall led the latter off to his quarters, about 300 feet further on. While on the ground MarShall uttered loud cries of "Murder;" "Don't kill mej" repeating them certainly twice, if notdftener. After Marshall was led away, Willis, boisterously anxious to continue his assault, pursued his way over the reservation grounds, surrounded by his friends,,-who were endeavoring within a short distance of the barracks to induce him to of Battery I, to which command the prisoner was attached. Willis was a powerful mau, aggressive, .quarrelsome, and violent when under the irlfhtence of as he manifestly was that night. The prisoner, who had always been on good teruIs with Willis, parted from him with friendly "good nights" at the door of a liquor saloon a few moments before the encounter with Marshall. King proceeded to the fence, and crossed it not far fro!U the. place where Marshall and Willis crossed. He saw' the attack on Marshall, and heard his cries. Acc()l'ding to his own story, he at once hastened to his quarters to get a rifle, hoping thus to terrify Willis and the others, and by this means save Marshall. King was in uniform;,.I1pon reaching his quarters, and while taking a rifle from the rack in the dormitory, he wokf\ up a fellow-soldier, who took the gun frOAlhi!wThere was a conflict of testimony between this soldier and theprisoner,-the one stating that King, with tears in his eyes, asked him foi-cartridges, saying: "You don't want to see me killed, do yOUj" the. prisoner df;l1lying that he asked for cartridges, and saying that he spoke only of the risk of Marshall being killed. From the adjoining dormitory he finally secured a gun and two cartridges,-one hall and one blank,and hurried again to the ground: .. .Here, as he testified, he saw Willis and his threecompll:nions, Willis advanoing towards him with loud threats and vile shouting that he "had a root to do [him)-upj" that could shoot as well as he [Kingj]" andthat he "would kill him deader ihan,hell." King called to theluto' le.avethe goverilmillit
UNITED STATES 'V. KING.
805
land. He stood his ground as Willis advanced, with his piece pointing downward. He further testified that he did not load till Willis was within eight feet of him, and had raised his hand with a knife in it, and that the advance upon him was so quick that his piece had not reached the horizontal (held still just above the hip) after closing the breechblock before Willis was against the muzzle, and he fired. The evidence as to the events succeeding the departure of Marshall was very conflicting; some of it tending to support the prisoner's story, and some contradicting it. The prisoner swore that when he went out with the rifle he supposed Marshall was still lying helpless on the ground. It was bright moonlight, but a mist or fog was rising from the ground to the height of about I8,inches. Mark D. Wilber,Dist. Atty., and Mr. Devenny, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the United States. Isaac S. Catlin, for King. LACOW3E, 1,., (chargingju'l'y.) Gentlemen of the Jury, it is the duty of the court, as you know, to instruct or charge you as to the law of the case. In doing so courts frequently refer to the facts,-review them, and present them tothe jury with their instructions as to the law. Such Ii course.isnOt necessary, I think, in this case, because the fiwts are very few, and certainly have them all within your recollection. I shall not weary you, therefore, with any general review of them; and inasmuch as:it would be certainly unwise, if not improper, for the court to undertake to present to you any of the material facts without presenting them all, I shall merely instruct you as to the law applicable to cases such this, with sufficient fullness, I hope, to enable you to handle the fiwts satis'factorily and conveniently when you reach your room. It is not unusu,al, in trials of this kind, to call the attention of the jury to the import!lJlce of the particular case they may have in charge. It is hardly necessary to do that here. Youare intelligent men. You must fully understand how absolutely essential it is to the preservation of the social system in a civilized state that the i.-ws should be enforced; especially so in the case of, acts of violence. The laws must be obeyed; offenders must be punished; and that juryman would be faithless to his trust who, in a case where the facts convicted, should bring in a verdict contrary to the facts. On the other hand, your responsibility in this case will be impressed upon you more forcibly by your experience than it would by any words of mine. For upward of a week you have sat within 25 feet of the prisoner at the har, conscious of the fact that for him the issnes of life and death are in your hands. If that solemn iiwt has not impressed you with a sense of the resp'Jnsibility you owe to your consciences, and your oaths that the verdict you may render shall be honest, intelligent, and careful,nothing that I might say would do 80, "though I spoke with the tongue of men .and angels." , TheprisoneNwthebar,: Francis H. King, is Indicted for murder,and you are to answer the question as to his guilt or innocence. The fact of slaying being undisputed here, there are only three. possible answers v.34F.noA-20
yoil
which you can tothiit question: .You may find him guilty of ihl1rder as charged in theindictment,ll.hd in that case your verdict would be;,"Ouilty." Y\)umayfind him not guilty of murder as charged in theirdictment, bUb'guilty of manslaughterj in that case your verdict would be, "Not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter." You may find that he was not guilty of either offense, but that the homicide was excusable, and in that case your verdict would be, "Not guilty." :You :see,'therefore, that at the outset of your deliberations there are certaintechnicalwords placed before yoU which mustpe defined, and before T go further I shall rtlad to )'OU the definitions of these words: Murder. The Revised Statutes of the United States 1 prescribe a penalty for any person who commits murder within any fort or other place or district of count't;tu.nder the exclusive jurisdiction of United' States. But the statntes do not define the offense of murder. Therefore we must turn ,-non law, as it was in England before the Revolution, and has been interpreted since by our courts, for a definition of that crime. It is this: Murder is where a personof sound memory,and discretion unlawfully and feloniously kills an,. human being' 'in the peace of the sovereign, With malice prepense oraiorethought, express or implied. . .. Manslaughter. Manslaughter is defined in the United States Revised Statutes, whioh Jnsection Sa4J., prescribe that every person who, within any of pr upon any of. the ;waters desoribed in the section that I first read, towit, any fort,al'8enal, etc.,-every pe'rson Who there unlawfully and willfully, but withollt'malice, iltl'ikes, stabs, wounds, or shoots at, or otherwise injures another, of which striking, stabbing, woUnding. shooting, or other injury such other person dies, is guilty of the crime· of manslaughter. That is the definition of I'. manslaughter. II You will that the between the two, is that in the aIle malice 'iilpresent, and in the other it is absent. It is therefote neeeSsary to that word· · .Ma1fce is defined liS 'II an intent to do injury to another," or, "a designformed mischief to another. The other,word or term which calls for definition at the outset is "excusable homicide." Homicide, of course,as you know, is the killing of one human being by another human being. Excusable homicide, so far as anything in this case requires its definition, is the. killing ,of another in self-defense·. . Now, perhaps, by this time you appreciate the fact that these definitions are hardly as satisfactory as they might bej nor is that surprising. A cane, a table, a chair,..-any object that we look at in this room,..-we can by the use of a few words define in a mallner satisfactolj to ourselves. When, however, we come to deal with crime, we deal largely with mental processes, and with the actions of the human heartjand eminent jurists, laboring for centuries, have been unable to prepare a definition. ef ,these crimes which, without further explanation, will enable a jury of 12 men to take it, and apply it to the facts, of any case. Theref6rej!aBnte proceed with these instructions I shall again recur to : - Rev. 8t; U.8., !i339.
Ul'UTED STATESV. KING.
307
these defiriitions, and give them Buch elaJ:>oration '8.S may be necessary to enable you. ti> see exactly what the offenses are. I shall probably best assist you if I trace over and point out to you. the \}ourse which you may most conveniently pursue in your deliberations when considering the issues raised in this case. The first thing to be determined is the death,-that Ryan Willis was killed,,-and the way in which he was killed. Of course youal'e relieved of any trouble in that particular by the facts in the case, and the concessions and the statements of the prisoner himself. There is no dispute but that Ryan Willis came to his death hya ball discharged from a Springfield rifle held at the time in the hands of Francis H. King. The place where he was thus slain becomes material, becuuse, as you will remember, the penalty was prescribed against one who commits murder within :8.ny fort, .arsenal, place, or district of country under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. A deed has been put inevidence here to the United States, covering a certain plot of land. An act of the legislature of the state of New York has been read, covering also a plot of land. There is testimony that the military authorities oCthe United States have for years past exercised acts of ownership and of jurisdiction civer a certain plot ofland in the village of Fort Hamilton, lying adjacent to, .and inside of-if I may use the expression-a tain fence on the line of Hamilton avenue. Now, certain maps, sworn ·to by those who made them, have been put in evidence; and without burdening you particularly with going over the details, I may charge you that if you believe the testimony of the surveyor and of the officers who made those maps, and further believe that the natural and artificial monuments that they found on the soil whenthEi maps were made coincided in location with the monuments, artificial or natural, that were placed on the soil when theueed was given, and when the act of cession was passed, you are warranted in finding that the fEmce on the line 'of Hamilton avenue is. substantially coincident with the property line and the line of jurisdiction oUhe United States there. And inasmuch'as it is undisputed that the fatal blow was struck at a point certainly 100 feet inside of that fence, I charge you that if you believe the testimony of this surveyor and of the officers, you are warranted in finding that the fatal blow was struck on property within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States,' Having got as far as that, the next question for you to take up and determine is this: Was this homicide excusable? Now, there ·are varieties of excusable homicide. For instance, homicide by misadventure,-that is by pure accident,without excusable. But the only kind of excus/!-ble homicide that there is any pretenseofbere, or that you'need in any way concern yourselves with, is what is known as "homicide in self-defense." "Under the law a.person has the right, to resist the application of force. to himself with .force proportioned to the attack. I t used to; be said· that the offellse threatened must. bl;l;a felony in order to justify the taking of life in resisting. That is a very unsatisfactory rule for jurymen, because the
308
I'EDERAL REl'ORTER.
misdemeanor is frequently regulated by statute; itvaries in the different states, and is not one withintae general knowledge of most laymen. Therefore I instruct you that the rule to be followed is this, which you will find more convenient for your deliberation: If an assailant comes against me with a deadly weapon, apparently meaning to use it, or if , without such weapon he assails me,' breathing forth threatenings and slaughter, or by any other means indicating that it is his intention to inflict upon me a beating of such a character as to imperil life, or to maim me, or do me grievous bodily harm, then I may take life, when necessary to repel the assault. That is the general rule, and I have no doubt that it commends itselfto your good sense. But, like all rules, it must be studied with its qualifications; and the first qualification to which I desire to call your attention is this: It is my duty when attacked to retreat as far as the fierceness of the assault would permit. H used tobe.said that it was the duty of the assailed to retreat to the ditch or to the wall. That picturesque expression was coined before the ,days,of fire-arms, when everyman who walked the-streets of London walked with his weapons by his side,-,-his rapier ·orhis dagger, his quarter-staff or single-stick. It is not adapted for our use now; and even when it was coined it was ill-adapted to its purpose, fora man might be assailed at a place Where there was neither' ditch nor wall within three The rule laid down by later authorities and sanctioned by' textwriters of ability is this: It is the duty of the assailed to abstain from the infliction. of death until he has retreated as far as he can with safety to himself. Here let me call your attention to a very apt illustration which is used, -'-whether in a reported case or whether as the expression of a text writer I am not certain, but it is a convenient illustration to have before you. Manslaughter and excusable homicide, as you will see later on, approach each other very nearly, and the distinction between them is thus indicated: "In excusable homicide the slayer could not escape if he would; in manslaughter he would not escape if he eould." That illustration very happily, in a few words, points out the distinction between the exercise of the right of excusable homicide and the crime of manslaughter, to which we will recur later on. There is another qualification, however, of the rule: The danger apprehended from the assailant need not be actually imminent, and lrremediable,-it need only be apparently so. The learned district attorney called your attention to fl case which very forcibly illustrates that qualification, where a person seeking to terrify pointed an unloaded gun at anotber, and that otherpers6n, deeming frbm the appearances that his life was in danger,replied bya discharge from his own pistol, and took the assailant's life. It is in2 N. Y.1 I think; and the court said he was entitled to rely upon the appearances. Now that same word "apparently" has given courts. and text writers no end of trouble. Apparently to whom? Suppose one oLyou gentlemen was a man of a quick eye and powerful build, muscles of iron, and nerves of steel, feeling himself competent to meet and throw with his IShorterv. People, 9 N.Y. 11l3, 11l7.
UNITED STATES 'D. KING.
309
naked hand any Dian that he has yet encountered who came against him with nothing but a the test of apparently imminent peril to be applied as he in his individual case, if he were the assailed, would apply it? Or is it to be applied as perhaps another jury-man would apply it,-weak, under-sized, nervous from disease, inexperienced in personalcombats? You seo that it is a difficult question to deal with in the abstract. But in the concrete,-that is, in applying it to cases as they arise,-yoll will probably not experience as much difficulty as courts and text writers do in explaining it. These tests are to oe applied: This belief-the belief that the assailed person has-must be an honest and sincere belief. That is one element. Secondly, it must not be negligently formed, or, as otherwise expressed, it must be founded upon reasonable grounds. And in determining whether it is founded on reasonable grounds, the jury are not to conceive of some ideally reasonable person, but they are to put themselves' in the position of the assailed persoD, with his physical and mental equipment, surrounded with the circumstances and exposed to the influences with which he was SUfrounded, and to which he was exposed at the time. If, with these tests applied,-that the belief is honest and sincere; that it is not negligently formed, but is reasonably grounded,-if with those elements duly considered, the jury are satisfied that there was then an apparently imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm to the person assailed, he is entitled to act upon the appearances. And the same rule as to appearances must be applied to the first qualification of the rule of self-defense,-that is, 11S to the time, if at all, when he should begin to retreat, and as to the limit to which his retreat should be conducted. In determining that question, also, you are to put yourselves in the place of the person assailed, surrounded by the circumstances, and exposed to the influences to which he was exposed. Thus much as to an attack upon one's self. Now as to an attar.k upon another. An attack made upon a friend, when it is of so fierce a character as has been described, may be resisted in a similar waYi and there are similar qualifications of that rule. To state it in other words, there must be an apparently imminent fatal assault, or one calculated to work grievous harm, to justify ·the intervenor, in taking the assailant's life. There must be a bona fide belief by the defendant,-with ·the qualifications as to appearances that I have called your attention to,-a bonafide belief by the defendant that an atrocious or felonious assault is in process of commission, which can only be resisted by the death of the felonious assailant, to make the killing excusable homicide; but if such belief though bana fide be negligently adopted by the defendant, it would be manslaughter. Should you reach the conclusion that the homicide was not excusable, the next question for you to determine is: Was it manslaughter? Man· elaughter, as you will remember, was defined by the statute, and was the unlawfully and willfully, but without malice, killing a person. It has also been thus defined at common law: "Manslaughter arises from the sudden heatof the passions; murder, from the wickedness of the heart." nVoluntary manslaughteris an intentiol11l1 killing in hpt blood,
31l)'
.' FEDERAL REPORTER.'
atilddiffers from murder, ,in this: that, though. the act which occasions the 'death be unlawfw r or likely to be, attended with bodily mischief, yet the malice aforethoughtrwhich is the essence of murder, is presumed to,bewanting; and, the aot being imputed, to the infirmity of human. is lenient." "The provocation nature, the in. the case.co{·ll. killing in hot· blood must be such as to account for theaot:b¥i reason of the infirmity of human passions.in men in general,iandwithout attri·buting to the prisoner a cruel and relentless disp(1)si:ticin.l' It includes the killing in hot bloodjit also.includes negligent killing. It will be more convenient for you, when you reach this stage. of the case, to pass over for the moment the consideration of the question whether this crime-if crime it be-is manslaughter, and, if you reach, the conclusion that it was not excusable homicide, determine at once whether or not it was murder; because, if not excusable homicide and not murder, then, the killing being admitted, it must be manslaughter. Manslaughterioccupies the middle ground between excusable homicide on the one hand and murder on the other. Murder, yoU/will remember, is not defined by thestatute,and, to paraphase the 'common-law definition which I read, it is an unlawful killing, with malice. Malice, you will remember, I told you was the intention to dOibodily harm; a formed design to do mischief. It has also been defined as a deliberate intent to kill. It does not necessarily import any especial malevolence towards the individual. slain,but also ineludes the case of a generally depraved, wicked, and malicious spirit, a heart regardless of social duty, and deliberately bent on mischief. It imports premeditation.. Therefore 'there must logically be a period of prior consideration; but as to the duration of that period no limit can be- arbitrarily assigned. The time will vary as the minds and temperaments of meil, and as do the circumstances in which they are placed.' The human mind acts at times with marvelous rapidity. Men have sometimes seen' the events of a life-time pass in a few minutes before' their niental vision. 1 Thought is sometimes referred to as the very. 1 Rear.Admiral Sir Francis Beatifort Was once 'nearly drowned. During the brief period.of apparent unconsciousness after he sank ·for the third time, his mind reviewed· ever;y'event of his past life.' His account of his experience, quoted in Miss Martineau's Biographical Sketches, is very interesting. "Tnecourse of those thoughts," he says, even now in a retrace. The ,event which had just taken place; the awkwardness whIch produced it; the, bustle it must have occasioned; the effect it would have on.a most ·affectionate father; the Iilanner in which he would disclose it to the rest of the family; aUll a tij.ousand. other circumstances minutely associated with home,-were the first series of refiections that occurred.. They took then a wider range: our last' cruii:le; a former voyage and shipwreck; my school, the vrogress I had made there, and the time I had misllPent; and·even all my boyish pursUltsand adventures. Thus traveling backward, every past incident of my life seemed to glance across my recollection in retrograde succession; not, however, III mere outlinehas stated, but the Ficture filled ,1i.p with every Plinu.teand collateral feature. In s or.t, the whole period 0 my exist,erice seemed to be placed before me in a kind of panoramic reto be acoompimied by 0. consciousness Of or wrong, . view, and each act of it or:by somtl.refiection on its cause or its .. Indeed,.many tnfii.ng events, '\thichhad been long then crowded into my imagination, and with the character of recent' flUtiiUa.ri.ty.!';. If this mental' aetion continued until he· was fullyrestored. to conSCiousness, the tiw.e consumtXl was about. 20 minutes. Admiral Beaufort, however, was always convinced that it lastedow.y dUring submersion j if so, all these erents swept before.hismentsJ. vision in the space of two minutes.
UNITED STATES V. KING.
311
symbol of swiftness. l There is no time so short but that within it the human mind can form a deliberate purpose to do an act; and .jf the intent to do mischief to another is thus formed as a deliberate intent, though after no matter how short a period of reflection, it none the less is malice. Malice, in the old definitions, is spoken of as express or implied. That again is a distinction which is a delusion and a snare. Practically, jurymen never deal with express malice. There is no express evidence of malice given to them. Malice, as I have told you, is an intent of the mind and heart. There is never presented to a jury direct evidence of what was the .jntent of the man's heart at the time. He is the only possible direct witness to that; and if he meant so to testify, he would plead guilty. The existence or non-existence of malice is,an inference to be drawn by the jury from all the facts in the case. The emotions of the heart, the processes of the mind. are. to us, or to anyone outside of the individual, exhibited by the acts which the individual performs; and we are entitled to infer what his intent was,-whlltwere the processes of his mind, and the feelings of his heart,-hy a careful indicastudy of the acts which he performed, and oBhe other tionswhich he may have given of what his state of mind and heart was. As an eminent text writer has put it, there is no case of malicious homicide in which malice is not inferred from attendant circumstances; no case in which it is demonstrated as express. We have no powertoascertain the certain condition of a man's heart; the best we can do is to infer his intent more or less satisfactorily, from his acts. Now, a 'person is presumed to intend what he does. A man who performs an act which he knows will produce a particular result is,from our common experience, presumed to have anticipated that result, arid.to have intended it. Therefore we· have a right to say, and the law says, that when a horni'cide is committed by weapons indicating design, then it is not necessary to prove that such design. existed at any definite period before the fatal blow. From the very fact of a blow being struck we have the right to infer as a presumption of fact, but not ·of law, (a distinction I wlll call your attention to in a moment,) that the blow was intended prior to the striking, although at a period of time inappreciably distant. And thus we frequently find the statement laid down in reported cases and. by text writers, that lnalice is to be inferred from the use of a deadly ·weapon. Put thus baldly, the statement of the proposition is hardly fair to the defendant. It is true, if that is all the evidence in the. case. Proven the death, proven the 'slaying with a deadly weapon, and stoppinp; there, we are warranted in inferring malice, and therefore finding the crime to be murder. But it is very, very rarely that that is all the evidence in the <lase. Your own' experience, frOril what you have heard and what you have read, certainly must have instructed you that there is hardly ever, if, indeed, ever,-I never heard of one,-a case where the only fact 1 Haste
me to know 't, that I, with Wings as 8Wift ,as mt<J,itation, or the thoughts of lOVe, )lay sweep my revenge. Hamlet: Act I., Scene 5
312
FEDERALREPORTEB.
proved against the defendant,or the only fact proved in his favor, was the killing the deceased with a deadly weapon. And the moment a single other fact is admitted into the case, this statement of a presumption becomes. misleading, unless the jury bear. in mind the caution which I will now give. Malice is to be inferred from all the facts in the case. If malice is found, it must be drawn as an inference from everything that is proved' taken together /l.nd considered as a whole. Every fact, no matter how small; every circumstance, no matter how trivial, which bears upon the question of malice, must be considered by the jury at the same time that they consider the. use of the deadly weapon; and it is only as a conclusion from all those facts and circumstances that malice, if inferred at all, is to be inferred. To murder, the existence of malice is absolutely essential. If there is no malice, and if the homicide is not excusable, then it must be manslaughter. There have been many requests submitted by the prisoner's counsel bearing on the subject of this being a .military post, and of the rules governing the service, the articles of war, etc. Now, that need not concern you a particle. This is not a slaying in the discharge of any military duty; it is not the case of the. shooting down a prisoner escaping from the guard-house; it is not the case of shooting down an intruder seeking to elude a sentry, or attempting to run his guard. There is no elemmt of the discharge of a military duty about this case at all. Waiving entirely any evidence as to a direct or implied permission for citizens to cross that parade ground, waiving that altogether, and considering that Willis stood there a naked trespasser, intruding wholly without right in a place where he had no business to be, that fact did not warrant a private soldier without any orders from his superior officer in shooting hiln down in his tracks. Nay, if Willis stood there a red-handed murderer, striding triumphant over the plain, with his victim behind him, but with his crime accomplished,that fact did not justify the killing of him on sight. It might be an excuse for hot blood in the man who thus saw the corpse of his soldier friend on the ground; but it was no excuse for shooting down the slayer. On the other hand, if slaying in self-defense were warranted in this case, it would stand the prisoner in just as good steadif he had slain Willis on Hamilton avenue as within the precincts of the resei·vation. There is no element whatever of military duty that enters into the determination of this case, and you need not concern yourselves with it. . There are other minor branches of the case to which it is proper that I should call your attention. The first is intoxication. There is no direct evidence ofintoxication on the part of the prisoner in this case. There is, however, evidence of his having drunk several times;. and! know not,of course, to what your deliberations mayor may not lead yon in that regard; and it is therefore proper that I should give you instructions as: to' the bearing of intoxication, if found to exist in the case of the defendant. Intoxication is no excuse for crIme. A man cannot commit a crime and then say, "I was intoxicated," and claim togoullwhipped of his offense. It is no excuse whatever for the commlssion of crime.· But when
313
it may do one of two things: it may sometimes bring murder down to the grade of manslaughter, and it may sometimes bring apparent self· defel1se up to the grade of manslaughter. The court of appeals in this state has thus laid down the rule: "It has never yet been held the crime of murder can be reduced to man· slaughter by showing that the perpetrator was drunk, when the same offense, ifcominitted by a sober man would be murder. But ifby reason of intoxication the defendant was so far deprived of his spnses as to be incapable of entertaining a purpose, or of acting f:'om design, then he might not be guilty of murder, but be guilty of manslaughter."
And the same rule is thus stated by a very eminent text writer: "Where the question of a specific intent is essential to the commission of a crime [and I have already charged you that malice, which is intent, is n6CPssary to the crime of murder] thtl fact that an offender was drunk when he did the act which, being coupled with that inteution, would constitute the crime, should be taken into account by the jury in deciding whether he had that· intention." .
But it is needless for me to call your attention to the fact that courts have repeatedly held that this excuse is to be received WIth great caution. The question on that branch of the case which is always left for the jury to determine is whether the defendant's mental condition was such that he was capable of a specific intent to take life. I also told you that intoxication would sometimes bring self-defense up to the grade of 'manslaughter. You remember what I told you about appearances being looked at from the standpoint of the person assailed, your putting yourself in his place, and looking at it with his sur. roundings,-the circumstances as they surrounded him·.. Now, if the danger seemed apparenUy imminent to him as he was, but seemeJ so apparent to him only because his mind was confused with liquor,........wouldn'thave been thus apparent to him, or wouldn't have seemed to beao .imminent if his mind had beeh clear,---in other words, if he made an error of fact in determining; whether or not his peril was imminent, and that error of fact was due to the circumstance that he was under the influence of liquor, then, as drunkenness is negligence, he was negligent in forming his belief. He would then be guilty of negligent homicide; and negligent homicide is manslaughter. The presumption of innocence. Upon thatI surely need say nothing to you. It is the A. B, C, of common life, as it is of law. The law presumes a man to be innocent, until he is proved guilty .. That presumption stands by him through the trial to its close, until it is over(lOme by affirmative proof. And if the evidence of guilt or innocence be so evenly balanced as to cause the jury to entertain a reasonable doubt as to his guilt or innocence, the accused should be acquitted. That leads me to the definition of reasonable doubt. What is reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt is a question of common sense and reason, and cannot be ascertained by artificial rule or definition: .Moral evidence cannot be weighed with the nicety ahd certainty with which coin and bullion are weighed at the mint.. I can do no better on thisbrantlh of the case than
314
FEDERAL REPORTER. ,
to read you from a decision of the supreme court of the United States,· where the following charge was approved as being sound law: lIThe cdurtcharges you' that the'law presumes the defendant innocent, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; that if you can reconcile the evidence before you upon any reasonable consistent with the defendant',s innocence you should do so, and in that case find him not gUilty. You the defendant guilty, unless from are further instructed that you cannot all th.e .evidanceyou believe,bim guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court you that a reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason, and which is reasonable in view of all the evidence; and if,after an impartial comparison and consideration of all the evidence, you can candidly say that you' are not:satisded of the defendant's guilt, yoU'have a reasonable doubt., But if, after: such impartial comparison and consideration of all the eVidence, you cantrutlifqlly say that yqp. have an abidiqg collviction of the defendan't's as you would be -w,illingto act upon. tn the more weighty and importa,Ilt mattllrs relating ,to your own affairs, you have no reasonable doubt." ... : ·· ' " , ,', . 'l , "
I admitted evidence (and probably strained the law somewhat in admitting it) as to the statements made by the on his way to the guard-house, or after arriving: Thereisa principle in the law of eyi,dence which js known as that is, that the declarations, of an individual made at the moment of a particularoCGurrence, whenthe circumstances are such we may assume that mind is controlled by the event, may be. received in evidence, beoause they .are supposed to be expressions involuntarily forced out of him by the particular event, and thuB have an element of truthfulness which they might otherwise not have. That rule is very carefully guarded by the courts. And only the testimony here because, now tbatthliJ' defendant himself can take the stand, there does not seem to be, the. necessity of enforcing the rule so strictly, if the jury are,properly,charged upon it. Now, apy statement or declaration that is put in evideIice of course must be taken in its entirety; you must consider it as a whole. But you are ,not to give. any more weight to a declaration thus: 'made, or any wejght at all, ,unless you are satisfied that it was made at a time when it was forced out as the utterance of a truth; forced out against his will, or withoqt his will, by the particular event itself, and, at a period of time so closely connected with the transaction that there has been no opportunity for subsequent reflection or determi r nation as.to what it might or might not be wise for him to say. With that qualification, 1 thihkthe testinwny can be left safely with you, and that there has been nO error in admitting it. ' . There is one other point__a minor, point-to which I would also call your ,attention. I am particularly anxious to do so because it is a piece of: evidence' of the de!elldanthimself. And inasmuch as it came ,out in response to a question by the court, I should be loath to think that you might, perhaps attach more importance to it than it deserves, and als.) extremeliYloath to 'think that any evidence called out by my question m.ight work improperly to the disadvantage of the prisoner. You rememher I asked him whether he had and he said he had not; and it was in evidence freql1ently left there and
'There are two other minor matters that r will now refer to.
315
came back without tl1eformality of having a pass. Any evidence in .that rt,gard you remember. Now, you and I may have our own opinion laymen, as civilians, upon the question whether it was or not, in the comprehensive language I>fthe sixty-second article of war, "to the prejudice of good order and military discipline," to maintain a company of enlisted men in barracks, located only a few hundred feet from of rum-shops, without a guard or sentry to overlook their outgoings and incomings, so that they might leave their barracks at any hour of the night, and come back at any hour of the night, and possibly at any stage of intoxication that pleased them, without encountering any guard, or sentry, or superior officer. .But whatever our opinions may be as to the wisdom of such a course, the prisoner is in no way responsible for that condition of affairs; and any feeling which we may havein consequence of its existence is in no way to be visited upon him. He was entitled to avail himself of and to enjoy just as much laxity of discipline as his superior officers at that post winlted at; and whether he was out on .pass, 'or without pass, must not weigh with you one feather's weight in handling this case, and in considering the facts. .He is in. no way responsible for anything of the kind, and no prejudice arises from the circumstances which are in evidence, as to the situation of this post and garrison, and the way in which it was conducted; they are not to influence yori one particle. After ruling upon the written requests to charge as presented by coun· sel, the court said: Briefly to recapitulate: To murder, malice is essential. Malice is an intent. to kill,-a formed design to kill. It importspremeditatiQn; but the mental processes are so swift that premeditation may be found to exist within the very shortest time. Manslaughter is'an unlawful killing without malice. It includes a killing in hot blood, after provocation. It includes a killing when a party, judging from appearances, makes an error of fact, and is mistaken because he is negligent. And it includes a killing which would otherwise be murder, unless you find that the mind is so obscured by intoxication as to be incapable of forming any purpose at all. Excusable homicide is homicide in self-defense, against an attack such as I· have explained to you, qualified with the duty of abstention from slaying until compels the fatal act, and with the duty of retreating as far as safety to the assailed persoDwill admit; and with the further qualification that appearances are enough, provided you find that the belief in them was sincere and honest,-that it was not formed negligently, but upon reasonable grounds, Viewing the circumstances, and the facts and phenomena, by putting yourself for the moment in the place of the assailed; and finally forming your opinion upon the whole case from a consideration of all the facts. 'Your verdict will be, and can only be, one of three. If you find'the defendant guilty of murder, your verdict will be simply "Guilty;j, if you
316
FEDERAL REPORTER.
find hilll not guilty of murder, but gtlilty of manslaughter, your verdict will be, as stated, "Not guilty of murder,but guilty of manslaughter;" if you find that the homicide was excusable, as being in self.defense, which is the only excuse proffered here, then your verdict will be, of course, "Not guilty." The verdict was "Not guilty."
UNITED STATES V. ATKINSON.
(District Oourt,.E. D. Michigan· . March 19,1888.)
On :Motion in Arrest of Judgment. The prisoner was convicted upon the first and third counts of an indictmentcharging him with the embezzlement of letters containing money. The first count charged that the defendant, "a person employed as letter carri.er in the postal service of the United States, did embezzle a certaiu .letter which came into his possession as snch letter carrier, * * * .which letter contained four pecuniary obligations of the government of the. United States, to-wit: fonr notes, commonly called treasury notes, each of the denomination and value of one dollar, * * * contrary to the form," etc. The third count charged him in substantially the same language with "secreting" a certain letter. The case was a;gued before the circuit and district judges· .J. W. Finney, for defendant. Oharles T.Wilkin8,Asst. U. S. Dist. Atty., for the United States. BROWN, 1,·. It is insisted upon this motion that both the first and third counts, one of which charges the defendant with embezzling, and the other with secreting, a letter containing an article of value, are defective in failing to allege that the act charged was done with a criminal intent. Exactly what words are necessary to be used to set forth with sufficient clearness the fraudulent are not stated, b':lt presuming
lIn the case of U. S. v. Harry, arising in the Western district, SEVERENS J., also held, after a careful examination of section 5467, that the penalty attached to both clauses of the;! section, but filed no opinion. .