State v. Valwell

Supreme Court of Vermont

State v. Valwell

66 Vt. 558

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedMay 15, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 66 Vt. 558 (State v. Valwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Valwell, 66 Vt. 558 (Vt. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMPSON, J.

I. If the respondent, as claimed by him, remained with the team, while Peter LeClare and [562]*562George Valwell were committing the burglary at Damon’s, evidence showing his participation in the larceny committed shortly béfore that night at Houghton’s, was admissible upon the question whether he remained with the team with the intent and purpose in so doing to aid LeClare and George Valwell in committing the burglary at Damon’s. It tended to prove that the respondent was cognizant of the crime which was being committed at Damon’s. Steph. Dig. Ev., Art. 11, 12; State v. Kelley, 65 Vt. 531. The state was bound to show this fact in its opening, and the evidence was not rendered inadmissible by the respondent’s subsequent testimony, which showed actual knowledge on his part of the purpose to break and enter Damon’s house to steal sugar.

II. The abuse of the doctrine of “ reasonable doubt” by juries in criminal cases, was a proper subject of discussion, and we do not think the language used by the state’s attorney in discussing it, takén together, presents reversible error.

III. There was no error in the charge of the court in respect to what would make the respondent guilty of the crime of burglary, although he did not go to Damon’s house with the others, but remained with the team while they committed the crime. The charge was applicable to the evidence, and-, guided by it, it was for the jury to determine whether the facts were such as to warrant a conviction.

Judgment that there is no error in the proceedings, and that the respondent take nothing by his exceptions.

Start, J., being engaged in county court, did not sit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THOMPSON, J.

I. If the respondent, as claimed by him, remained with the team, while Peter LeClare and [562]*562George Valwell were committing the burglary at Damon’s, evidence showing his participation in the larceny committed shortly béfore that night at Houghton’s, was admissible upon the question whether he remained with the team with the intent and purpose in so doing to aid LeClare and George Valwell in committing the burglary at Damon’s. It tended to prove that the respondent was cognizant of the crime which was being committed at Damon’s. Steph. Dig. Ev., Art. 11, 12; State v. Kelley, 65 Vt. 531. The state was bound to show this fact in its opening, and the evidence was not rendered inadmissible by the respondent’s subsequent testimony, which showed actual knowledge on his part of the purpose to break and enter Damon’s house to steal sugar.

II. The abuse of the doctrine of “ reasonable doubt” by juries in criminal cases, was a proper subject of discussion, and we do not think the language used by the state’s attorney in discussing it, takén together, presents reversible error.

III. There was no error in the charge of the court in respect to what would make the respondent guilty of the crime of burglary, although he did not go to Damon’s house with the others, but remained with the team while they committed the crime. The charge was applicable to the evidence, and-, guided by it, it was for the jury to determine whether the facts were such as to warrant a conviction.

Judgment that there is no error in the proceedings, and that the respondent take nothing by his exceptions.

Start, J., being engaged in county court, did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 Vt. 558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-valwell-vt-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack