TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Hunter

State v. Hunter, 48 S.E. 839 (W. Va. 1904)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
West Virginia Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 25, 1904
Judges
Brannon
Citations
48 S.E. 83956 W. Va. 1071904 W. Va. LEXIS 98
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
1. Jury — Instruction—Error—Verdict. When a jury returned into court, and announced that it had' agreed in a verdict, before it was read, the prisoner asked the-eourt to instruct the jury that it could find him guilty of murder in the first degree, and further find that he be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for life; but the court refused to do' so, because already during the trial, it had given that instruction. The refusal to repeat the instruction is not error, (p. 56).
Summary
Error to Circuit Court, Fayette County. Ed. Hunter was convicted of murder and brings error.

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

Opinion of the Court — Brannon

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

BRANNON, Judge:

Ed. Hunter was sentenced by the criminal court of Fayette county to be hanged for the murder of John Bradicks by shooting’him, and obtained a writ of error from this Court.

One error assigned by him is that the court refused an in-étruction that after finding the prisoner guilty of murder in the first degree the jury could further find that he be confined in the penitentiary for life. The instruction was asked after the jury had returned into court and announced that -it had agreed in a verdict, but before it was read. The bill of exception states that the instruction was refused because the jury had already during the trial been instructed that they had a right to find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree and to further find that he be confined in the penitentiary during the remainder of his life, and that it had been so stated to the jury by counsel several times during the trial. Instructions need not be repeated. State v. Prater, 52 W. Va. 132 . Clearly the jury understood its powers as to this matter, and no injustice was done the accused.

Another assignment of error is, that a witness gave evidence of a declaration of the murdered man a minute or two after his shooting that Ed. Hunter shot him four times. There was no objection to this evidence, and no exception to it, and we need not'consider the point; but in fact the declaration was properly given in evidence, for the reason, first, that it was a.part of the res gestae, and second, Hunter was within hearing distance, and made no denial of that declaration. Third, there was much other evidence to prove Hunter the guilty agent. The evidence fully sustained the verdict. This Court cannot release Hunter from the terrible penalty of the gallows. The law, human and divine, says, “Ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murdered, which is guilty of death; but he shall surely be put to death.” Hunter must repay Bradick’s life with the loss of his own.

Judgment affirmed. Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1933: 119332026peak 1933 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Sibert169 S.E. 410 (W. Va. 1933)

Most recent

  1. State v. Sibert169 S.E. 410 (W. Va. 1933)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
State v. Prater, 43 S.E. 230 (W. Va. 1902) 60

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