State v. Seymour

Citations

• 7 Idaho 548
• 63 P. 1036
• 1901 Ida. LEXIS 5

Syllabus

<p>Grand Larceny — Judgment—Reversal—Evidence.—When, on an appeal, the judgment is reversed on the ground that the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict, the trial cqurt, on the motion of the county attorney, should dismiss the case when it is shown that the state has no other or further evidence than that adduced on the first trial.</p> <p>Second Trial — Additional Evidence. — Held, in this ease that the state did not produce, on the second trial, further or additional material evidence than that produced on the first trial.</p> <p>Rebuttal. — Under the facts of this case, it was error to refuse to allow the defendant to introduce, in rebuttal, evidence contradicting certain statements' sworn to by a witness on behalf of the prosecution.</p> <p>Jury — Instruction to. — When a judgment has been reversed on the ground that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict, and the ease is remanded, and a retrial is had, if no further or additional evidence is produced on the trial of the defendant’s guilt, the court ought to instruct the jury to return a verdict of acquittal.</p> <p>Excusing County Attorney from Testifying. — It is error to excuse the county attorney from testifying on behalf of the defendant simply because he does not wish to do so.</p> <p>Discharge of Defendant. — When it is made to appear that the state cannot produce additional material evidence of the guilt of one tried for a crime, and this court reverses a judgment of conviction, on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, this court will order a discharge of the prisoner.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the court.)</p>