119 P. 566 | Mont. | 1911
delivered the opinion of the court.
Defendant was convicted in Silver Bow county of the crime of murder in the second degree, his punishment was fixed by the jury, and judgment was entered on the verdict. He appeals from the judgment and also from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
Four principal contentions are urged upon the court:
1. That the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict. We have carefully read the testimony and other evidence in the record. It was all circumstantial, but we are convinced was amply sufficient to warrant the jury in determining that the defendant was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. (State v. Byrd, 41 Mont. 585, 111 Pac. 407.) The evidence justifies the
2. At the time of the shooting, Roberts was accompanied by one Scott. The latter was placed on the witness-stand by the
It is contended that in allowing Donovan to express his belief that Scott was guilty of being an accessory to a murder the court committed error. In placing Donovan on the stand, the evident purpose was to draw from his narrative of the proceedings against Scott the inference that they were not taken in good faith. The state undoubtedly had a right to dispel this
3. It is contended that the court erred in giving to the jury instructions relating to murder in the first and second degrees. This contention is disposed of in the discussion of No. 1 above.
4. During the argument to the jury the county attorney made this statement: “You have the witness Ben Scott, the witness
The judgment and order are affirmed.
'Affirmed.