32 Tenn. 482 | Tenn. | 1852
delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendant was indicted and convicted in the circuit court of Franklin county, for murder in the second degree. A motion for a new trial was made and overruled. Appeal to this court.
The first ground urged for a reversal, is, that defendant was refused a continuance to which he was by law
It is urged that there is an error in that part of the charge of the court, which is in these words: “ The jury are not only the judges of the facts in the case, but they are the judges of the law. • The court is a witness to them, as'to what the law is; after the court has stated the law to them, then, if they believe it to be different, they can disregard the opinion of the court. .If the judge is against the defendant, his judgment can be reversed by the supreme court; if the jury errs in favor of the defendant their judgment is final, and can not be reversed in the supreme court.”
It is first objected that the judge said he was a ic witness to them, as to what the law is.” This, it is said, was calculated to give undue weight to his opinions of what the law is, conveying the idea that it would be perjury in him to mistake it. Even on that idea, the charge is correct, for he performs this, as well as all other duties of his office, under oath, and is thus solemnly bound to give the law to the jury, fully and fairly, as he understands it. But, in the same sentence, he tells them, that if they differ with him, as to what the law is, they have a right to disregard his opinion. In connection with this last point, which we think quite strong enotfgh, to say the least of it, for the defendant, he reminds them, that if he erra against the defendant, it can be cured by a revising court; but if the jury «en* in favor of the defendant, there is no means of ■correcting it, as the State cannot appeal from a verdict
We have examined the whole charge, and consider it a very able and accurate exposition of the law of homicide, and taken as a whole, we think there is no material error in it. . It gave to the defendant the advantage of every legal principle which could operate in 1ns favor, and properly guarded the cause of public justice.
Upon the whole, we feel constrained in all things, to affirm the judgment below.