66 Vt. 558 | Vt. | 1894
I. If the respondent, as claimed by him, remained with the team, while Peter LeClare and
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.