State v. Roberts
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.
Brannon, Judge:
William Roberts was found guilty by a jury of maliciously shooting Lewis Bevans, in the criminal court of Cabell county, and sentenced to the penitentiary for two years, and after refusal of a writ of error by the circuit court obtained such writ from this Court.
*499 There is no brief on either side. . There is no place for a brief. A very considerable volume of oral evidence by a number of witnesses is in the case, and it is very conflicting. That Roberts shot Be vans three times is proven by eye witnesses and by his own evidence. The only question is self defence upon very conflicting' evidence. This is peculiarly a question for the jury and trial-court. This Court cannot set aside a verdict under such circumstances. A cloud of cases tell us this. State v. Newman, 49 W. Va. 724 ; State v. Morgan, 35 Id. 260; State v. Bowyer, 43 Id. 180. The case being “dependent upon conflicting oral evidence, thus making the credibility of witnesses an important factor,” the verdict approved by trial court, must stand, even if we could say there was excess in quantum of evidence in behalf of defendant. Fulton v. Crosby-Beckley Company, 57 W. Va. 91 . Hill’s Case, 2 Grat. 594, says that it is an abuse of power for this Court to set aside a verdict merely because its members would not have so found. I think the verdict is sustained by the evidence.
Aifirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
("When, upon a conviction for malicious shooting, the only question is whether the accused acted in self-defence, and the evidence as to it is materially conflicting, the supreme court will not grant a new trial.")
Cited by 3 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.