Brown v. Commonwealth

1. Criminal Law—Guilt Must be Proved, not Inferred—Case at Bar.— The guilt of a person accused of crime is not to be inferred because the facts are consistent with his guilt. They must be inconsistent with his innocence. In the case at bar the evidence establishes a mere suspicion of guilt.

Error to a judgment of the County Court of Henrico- county, rendered August 23, 1899, on an indictment for a felony. The evidence sufficiently appears in the opinion of the court. On the trial, the prisoner asked for two instructions, which were refused by the court, and, in lieu thereof three others were given. The instructions asked for by the prisoner and those given by the court were as follows: Instructions asked for by the prisoner: “ 1. That in criminal cases, even where the evidence is so strong that it demonstrates the probability of the guilt of the prisoner, still if it fails to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, the guilt of the defendant as charged in the indictment, then it is the duty of the jury to acquit the defendant as to whose guilt they entertain such reasonable doubt. “ The jury are instructed that mere probabilities are not sufficient to warrant a conviction, nor is it sufficient that the greater weight or preponderance of the evidence supports the allegations of the indictment, nor is it sufficient, that upon the doctrine of chance, it is more probable that the defendant is guilty. To warrant a conviction of the defendant he must be proved to be guilty so clearly and conclusively that there is no reasonable theory upon which he can be innocent, where all the evidence in the case is considered together.” “ 2. The court instructs the jury that the policy of our law deems it better that many guilty persons should escape rather than one innocent person should be convicted and punished; so that, unless the jury, after a careful and thoughtful consideration of all the evidence in the case, can say and feel that every material allegation in the indictment is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury should find the defendant not guilty.” Instructions given by the court: “ 1. The court instructs the jury that the law presumes the accused to be innocent until he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is upon the minds of the jury any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, the law makes it their duty to acquit him, and that mere suspicion or probability of his guilt, however strong, is not sufficient to convict, nor is it sufficient if the greater weight or preponderance of evidence supports the charge in the indictment, but to warrant his conviction his guilt must be proved so clearly that there is no reasonable theory, consistent with the evidence, upon which he can be innocent.” ... ' “ 2. The jury are instructed that in order to convict the accused of the crime alleged against him in the indictment every material fact necessary to constitute such crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and if the jury have a reasonable doubt upon a material fact or element necessary to constitute the crime it is their duty to give the prisoner the benefit of such doubt and acquit him.” “ 3. The court further instructs the jury that circumstantial evidence is legal and competent in criminal cases, and if it is of such a character as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis, other than that the defendant is guilty, it is entitled to the same weight as direct testimony.” To this action of the court the prisoner, by counsel, excepted.