Arnold v. State
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Erazer, J.
This was a prosecution for assault and battery. There was a jury trial, and conviction below.
The court below, (an attorney occupying the bench to try the cause) instructed the jury as follows: “A reasonable doubt as to any material fact must be such a doubt that convinces you that the fact does not exist. Perhaps in. this I may have given you the law a little too strong. I will modify it by saying this, If there is a reasonable doubt that arises in your minds, that convinces you that the fact is not as charged, you may acquit.”
This was an error.. A doubt never convinces. A reasonable doubt exists, when the evidence is not sufficient to satisfy the judgment of the truth of a proposition, with such certainty that a prudent man would feel safe in acting upon it in his own important affairs. The evidence is in the record, and is of such a nature as to have required a proper charge to the jury upon this subject.
The judgment below is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 10 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.