Perovich v. United States, 205 U.S. 86 (1907)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Perovich v. United States, 205 U.S. 86 (1907)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 205 U.S. 80, click here.
Perovich v. United States No. 405 Submitted January 29, 1907 Decided March 11, 1907 205 U.S. 86
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE THIRD DIVISION OF THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA
Syllabus
While in this case there was no witness to the homicide and the identification of the body found was not perfect, owing to its condition caused by its having been partially burned, yet, as the circumstantial evidence was clearly enough to warrant the jury in finding that the body was that of the person alleged to have been murdered and that he had been killed by defendant, the trial court would not have been justified in withdrawing the case from the jury, but properly overruled a motion to instruct a verdict of not guilty for lack of proof of the corpus delicti.
In the absence of positive proof, but where there is circumstantial evidence of the corpus delicti, it is not error to submit to the jury the question of defendant’s guilt with the instruction that the circumstantial evidence must be such a to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the corpus delicti has been established.
The testimony of a marshal as to conversations between him and the defendant charged with murder which were voluntary, and not induced by duress, intimidation, or other improper influences, is admissible.
Whether in a criminal trial the court interpreter should be appointed is a matter largely resting in the discretion of the court, and its refusal so to do is not an error where it does not appear that the discretion was in any way abused.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Perovich v. United States, 205 U.S. 86 (1907) in 205 U.S. 86 205 U.S. 87–205 U.S. 88. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=FBYGX3LJKAY7YYG.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Perovich v. United States, 205 U.S. 86 (1907), in 205 U.S. 86, pp. 205 U.S. 87–205 U.S. 88. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=FBYGX3LJKAY7YYG.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Perovich v. United States, 205 U.S. 86 (1907). cited in 1907, 205 U.S. 86, pp.205 U.S. 87–205 U.S. 88. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=FBYGX3LJKAY7YYG.
|