TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Woods

People v. Woods, 16 P. 551 (Idaho 1888)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Idaho Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 2, 1888
Judges
Broderick, Buck, Hays
Citations
16 P. 5512 Idaho 3641888 Ida. LEXIS 2
Syllabus
■Pbactice — Presumption—Sufficiency oe Indictment. — On appeal from a judgment in a criminal case, where no part of the evidence is brought to the supreme court by bill of exceptions, or otherwise, and the indictment is sufficient to support the judgment, this court will assume that the evidence was sufficient to warrant the verdict, and will further assume that the trial court’s charge to the jury was pertinent to the facts proved on the trial. (Syllabus by the court.)
Summary
APPEAL from District Court, Bingham County. No brief filed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Broderick

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

BRODERICK, J.

— The defendant was indicted, charged with the willful and deliberate murder of Sarah Woods. At the May, 1887, term of the district court for Bingham county a trial was had, and the defendant found guilty of murder in the first degree, and judgment rendered upon the Verdict. From this judgment the defendant appealed.

In this court no appearance was made on behalf of the appellant, and on motion of the attorney general the case was submitted on the record. The transcript contains the indictment, intermediate orders, minutes of the trial, etc., but the evidence is not before us, and no exceptions appear to have been taken in the trial court. Under the rule, we might have affirmed the judgment without inquiry, but as the life of a human being was involved, we deemed it our duty to carefully examine the record brought here, and have done so.

On the trial the defendant had able counsel, and no question was there raised as to the sufficiency of the indictment. But we have here examined it, and find it entirely sufficient to support the judgment. The evidence not being before us, we must assume that it was sufficient to warrant the verdict rendered; and we must also assume that the court’s charge to the jury was given with reference to the facts found.

We have found no error in the transcript, and the judgment is therefore affirmed. A certificate of the judgment here will be remitted to the court below, and said court is directed to make such order as may be necessary to carry its judgment into effect. Judgment affirmed.

Hays, C. J., and Buck, J"., concurring.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1888: 11913: 11923: 11937: 118882026peak 1888 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Hunsaker216 P. 721 (Idaho 1923)
  2. State v. McMahan65 P.2d 156 (Idaho 1937)
  3. State v. Hall135 P. 1163 (Idaho 1913)
  4. People v. Williams16 P. 552 (Idaho 1888)

Most recent

  1. State v. McMahan65 P.2d 156 (Idaho 1937)
  2. State v. Hunsaker216 P. 721 (Idaho 1923)
  3. State v. Hall135 P. 1163 (Idaho 1913)
  4. People v. Williams16 P. 552 (Idaho 1888)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list