State v. Aurand

Citations

• 76 Wash. 529
• 136 P. 1139
• 1913 Wash. LEXIS 1854

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law — Evidence—Identity of Accused — Sufficiency. The identity of accused, who was chased from the scene of an attempted burglary, and caught by a policeman, is a question for the jury, where the policeman testified that the accused fled, dodging around corners, that he gave chase and had accused in view after making each turn until the capture, especially where the accused was a witness in his own behalf and his testimony was unsatisfactory.</p> <p>Criminal Law- — Trial—-Instructions — Presumption of Innocence. In an instruction on the subject of reasonable doubt as to the identity of the accused, an expression to the effect that if he is the man “to blame” or “not to blame” the jury must say so, is not prejudicially erroneous in that it tends to minimize or destroy the legal presumption of innocence, where the instructions as a whole did not tend to authorize a conviction unless the jury found his conduct blameless, and from the context it is evident that “blame” was used as synonymous with the word “guilty.”</p>