Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

64 W. Va. 498

State v. Roberts

West Virginia Supreme Court

Decided December 9, 1908

West Virginia Supreme Court · decided 1908-12-09

<p>Criminal Law — Appeal—Conflicting Evidence — New Triul.</p> <p>When, upon a conviction for malicious shooting, the only question is whether the accused acted in self-defence, and the evidence as to it is materially conflicting, the supreme court will not grant a new trial, (p. 499.)</p>

Relies on Fulton v. Crosby & Beckley Co. · State v. Newman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1908-12-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 2001

3 state decisions

1019081910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Brannon, Judge:

¶1William Roberts was found guilty by a jury of maliciously shooting Lewis Bevans, in the criminal court of Cabell county, and sentenced to the penitentiary for two years, and after refusal of a writ of error by the circuit court obtained such writ from this Court.

¶2*499There is no brief on either side. . There is no place for a brief. A very considerable volume of oral evidence by a number of witnesses is in the case, and it is very conflicting. That Roberts shot Be vans three times is proven by eye witnesses and by his own evidence. The only question is self defence upon very conflicting' evidence. This is peculiarly a question for the jury and trial-court. This Court cannot set aside a verdict under such circumstances. A cloud of cases tell us this. State v. Newman, 49 W. Va. 724; State v. Morgan, 35 Id. 260; State v. Bowyer, 43 Id. 180. The case being “dependent upon conflicting oral evidence, thus making the credibility of witnesses an important factor,” the verdict approved by trial court, must stand, even if we could say there was excess in quantum of evidence in behalf of defendant. Fulton v. Crosby-Beckley Company, 57 W. Va. 91. Hill’s Case, 2 Grat. 594, says that it is an abuse of power for this Court to set aside a verdict merely because its members would not have so found. I think the verdict is sustained by the evidence.

¶3 Aifirmed.

/64/wva/498 · .json · Public domain