Commonwealth v. Rider

Citations

• 29 Pa. Super. 621
• 1905 Pa. Super. LEXIS 393

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Assault and battery — Automobile—Turnpike.</p> <p>In the trial of an indictment for assault and battery a verdict of guilty will be sustained where the evidence for the commonwealth submitted to the jury, although contradicted, tended to show that the defendants in driving an automobile approached a toll gate, and when toll was demanded of them, choked the keeper, rushed their machine against and through the gate which the keeper’s wife was holding, and severely injured the latter, and that they had previously driven through a number of toll gates at a high rate of speed without paying toll.</p> <p>In such a case a demand by the keeper for a higher rate of toll than was legal, did not justify the assault.</p> <p>Criminal law — Instructions—Doubt—Reasonable doubt.</p> <p>In a criminal case when a reasonable doubt, within the meaning of the law and under the evidence, exists, it is the property of the defendant, and must result in an acquittal.</p> <p>The discretion of the jury is to be exercised in determining whether the reasonable doubt exists; if they find that such doubt does exist, then, the legal principle applicable is that they must give the defendant the benefit of the doubt; not that they may do so in their discretion.</p> <p>On a criminal trial the only instruction given by the court on the subject of doubt was as follows: “If you have any doubt of the guilt of the defendants, or either of them, on the indictments, under the testimony and the law in the case, you may give the defendants, or the one who is entitled to that benefit, the benefit of the doubt.” Held, to be insufficient and misleading.</p>