9 S.D. 564 | S.D. | 1897
The defendant was indicted, tried and convicted of the crime of'murder, and, under the verdict of the jury, he was sentenced to state prison for life. The alleged murder was committed in the unorganized county of Wagner, adjoining Butte county, in which latter county the case was tried. The evidence against the defendant is what is known as “circumstantial evidence”, there being no direct proof that the
Hodgkins, when on the stand for the defense, on his cross-examination by the state, was asked this question: “Did you
The rule may be said to be well settled that the statement of the witness upon which he can be impeached must not only
This whole subject has been so ably discussed in the recent homicide case of Drake v. State, supra, by the criminal court of appeals of Texas, that we feel warranted in making quite
It will thus be seen that, in the light of these decisions, the evidence of Anderson as to what Hodgkins had told him was
It is further contended that, if the admission of this evidence was error, it should be disregarded by the court, for the reason that the evidence, independently of the evidence of Anderson, was amply sufficient to justify the verdict of the ]ury. But we cannot take this view of the error. It is impossible for this court to say how much weight the jury may have given to the opinion of Hodgkins, if they believed he made the statement testified to by Anderson. The deliberate statement of Hodgkins, a brother of Mrs. Giles, who came a distance of 120 miles to investigate the murder of his brother-in-law, and who seems to have made a careful investigation of all the facts con