(Download) "State v. Pankow" by Supreme Court of Montana # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: State v. Pankow
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 29, 1958
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 56 KB
Description
AUTOMOBILES ? CRIMINAL LAW ? MANSLAUGHTER ? TRIAL. 1. Automobiles ? Question for jury. In involuntary manslaughter prosecution against motorist arising out of death of his three passengers when his automobile passed two preceding automobiles near curve and skidded and ran over left edge of road and down 19-foot embankment and rolled 280 feet across rock flat and came to rest on its side in creek, evidence raised question for jury as to whether tire failure caused accident or whether motorist deliberately drove his automobile around curve at speed which he must have known was dangerous to his passengers lives. 2. Criminal Law ? Substantial evidence rule. Finding of jury based on substantial evidence will not be overturned by Supreme Court. 3. Criminal Law ? Right of jury to believe witnesses. The jury is at liberty to pick and choose which of the witnesses it will believe in absence of such extraordinary circumstances as to make their verdict obviously the product of misunderstanding or prejudice. 4. Criminal Law ? Leading questions ? Statement of court not prejudicial. In involuntary manslaughter prosecution against motorist arising out of deaths of his three passengers when his automobile passed two preceding automobiles near curve and skidded and ran over left edge of road and down a 19-foot embankment, where witness testified that motorist passed witness and that motorist was going faster than witness and defendants attorney objected on the ground that the questions put to witness were leading, trial courts statement that there was no question about the motorist going faster was not prejudicial. 5. Criminal Law ? Bill of exceptions. Defendant could not assert that his own bill of exceptions was not accurate. 6. Automobiles ? Instruction as to duty of motorist. The court was not required to instruct that motorist owed duty to occupants to take care, where it was never contended that the occupants were not passengers in the automobile. - Page 520 7. Criminal Law ? Failure to give instruction not error. Failure to give tendered instruction was not prejudicial error where the matter was adequately covered in other instructions. 8. Homicide ? Intent. Willful or evil intent is not an element of involuntary manslaughter. 9. Automobiles ? Instructions as to intent. In involuntary manslaughter prosecution against motorist, motorist was not entitled to instruction that willful or evil intent is an element of involuntary manslaughter.