Boyd v. United States

142 U.S. 450 (1892)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ds were jointly indicted for the crime of murder. The first count alleged that the person murdered, John Dansby, was a negro, and the second, that Ds were white men. The proof was conflicting on many points. In addition to the evidence related to the present crime, Ds objected to evidence of several robberies committed prior to the present crime. These prior crimes had no necessary connection with, and did not, in the slightest degree, elucidate the issue before the jury, namely, whether Ds murdered John Dansby on the occasion of the conflict at the ferry. The additional evidence showed that, on the night of March 15, 1890, Standley (D), under the name of Henry Eckles, robbed Richard C. Brinson and Samuel R. Mode; that on the afternoon of March 17, 1890, he and Boyd (D) robbed Robert Hall; that in the night of March 20, 1890, Standley (D), under the name of John Haynes, together with Davis, robbed John Taylor; and that, in the evening of April 5, 1890, Davis, and Ds robbed Rigsby's store. In relation to these matters, the witnesses went into details as fully as if the defendants had been upon trial for the robberies they were, respectively, charged by the evidence with having committed. As to the evidence in chief as to what occurred at the time of the shooting for this present crime, left the identity of Ds, or at least of Standley (D), in some doubt, and that the facts, connected with the robbery of Rigsby, showing that Ds and Davis were all engaged in it, and were together only the night before Dansby was shot, tended not only to identify Ds, but to show that they came to the ferry for the same purpose with which they went to Rigsby's house, namely, to rob and plunder for their joint benefit; and, consequently, that each defendant was responsible for Dansby's death if it resulted from the prosecution of their felonious purpose to rob. The court gave limiting instruction on the crime of Rigsby that may be taken into consideration in passing upon the question of the identity of Ds. The jury was told: If you believe in the theory that there was an attempt made to arrest upon the part of these parties and that the attempt wasn't made by these defendants, together with Davis, to commit a robbery upon them, then the fact that the robbery of Rigsby had transpired, and the robbery of Taylor and these other robberies that have been proven before, may be taken into consideration to show that crime had been committed, that would give the citizen the right to make an arrest provided there was reasonable ground to believe, in your judgment, at the time, that the parties they were seeking to arrest were the ones that had committed those crimes. They may be taken into consideration for that purpose. You are not to consider these other crimes as make-weight against Ds alone. That is to say, you are not to convict Ds because of the commission of these other crimes. They were admitted for the specific purposes that I have named. They are not to influence your minds so as to induce you to more readily convict them than you would convict them if the crimes had not been proven against them. They were left uninstructed, in direct terms, as to the use to which the proof of the Brinson, Mode, and Hall robberies could be put in passing upon the guilt or innocence of the particular crime for which Ds were indicted. Ds were found guilty and sentenced to death. Ds appealed.