Berryhill v. State

Apr 14, 1921
No. 2335
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Atkinson
Atkinson, J.

1. Where two or more persons conspire to rob another who is employed in a building, ‍​​​‌​​‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‍and one of the conspirators keeps wateh or guard at a convenient distance while the others enter the building and, in furtherance of the common design to rob, kill the person intended to be ‍​​​‌​​‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‍robbed, sueh killing is a probable consequence of the unlawful design to rob, and all the conspirators are guilty of murder, including the one on guard. Penal Code (1910), § 42; 1 Wharton’s Criminal Law ‍​​​‌​​‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‍(11th ed.), § 258; Wharton on Homicide (3d ed.l, 660, § 430; Clark’s Criminal Law (2d ed.), 106, § 47; Brennan v. People. 15 Ill. 511; Stephens v. State, 42 Ohio St. 150; Miller v. State, 25 Wis. 384; State v. Barrett, 40 Minn. 77 (41 N. W. 463); Weston v. Commonwealth, 111 ‍​​​‌​​‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‍Pa. 251 (2 Atl. 191). In this case there was sufficient evidence to authorize a charge to the jury applying the foregoing legal principle.

2. The verdict finding the defendant guilty of murder was authorized by ‍​​​‌​​‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‍the evidence, and the judge did not err in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.