Griggs v. United States

The plaintiff in error was jointly charged with one Duncan of the crime of obtaining money by false pretenses. The indictment set forth the false pretenses, alleged that they were made with the intention to defraud F. T. Merritt and obtain from him the sum of $875, and that, relying upon the same, said Merritt then and there paid to the said Duncan and the plaintiff in error the sum of $875; and the indictment proceeded to set forth the falseness of the pretenses. The plaintiff in error was tried separately, and was convicted. It is assigned as error that the court overruled a demurrer to the indictment and a motion in arrest of judgment, by both of which the indictment was questioned on three grounds: First, that it does not allege that the offense charged was committed in the Second division of the district of Alaska; second, that it does not allege the value or description of the money so obtained; and, third, that it does not aver that the money alleged to have been obtained on the false pretenses was the property of Merritt.

As to the first objection, we find that in Act June 6, 1900, c. 786, § 4, 31 Stat. 322 , it is provided as follows: “There is hereby established a…

I dissent. That no one can be legally convicted of a crime, but by the unanim.ous verdict of 12'jurors upon evidence which satisfies their minds of the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, will not be disputed. It necessarily results that, when the court undertakes to instruct the jury as to what a reasonable doubt is, it is essential that it do so correctly. In the present case the trial- court instructed the jury that such a doubt is one “for which some reason can be given.” I am aware that some appellate courts have sustained a similar instruction; but in the case of Owens v. United States, 130 F. 283 , 64 C.C.A. 529 , we said, and I think correctly said, that: “A doubt arising out of the evidence is a mental operation for which it may often be very difficult, and indeed impossible, to assign any reason, and yet, if honestly entertained by the jury in a criminal case, must be acted upon; for they are only authorized to bring in a verdict of guilty when satisfied and convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.”

Upon the ground here indicated, I think the judgment should be reversed, and a new trial awarded.