## Facts

- Francis Ross, a saloon owner, had hostility with rival saloon owner Amos Robinson.
- On June 21, 1896, Ross shot and killed Robinson in Crook County, Wyoming.
- The State’s evidence indicated Robinson was unarmed and that only two shots were fired, both by Ross.
- Ross claimed self-defense, asserting Robinson fired first.
- After a change of venue, trial occurred in Weston County; Ross objected to certain prosecutors’ participation and alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
- The trial court instructed the jury on degrees of homicide, malice (including implied malice), justification/self-defense, and the State’s burden of proof.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial was invalid due to participation of particular attorneys as prosecutors, including a legislator-attorney and an attorney who had previously acted as a judge in a related matter.
2. Whether it was unlawful for a judge from another judicial district to preside over the trial.
3. Whether the State was required to call all eyewitnesses and whether certain inferential/opinion testimony was improperly admitted.
4. Whether the jury instructions on malice, justification, and reasonable doubt were erroneous, and whether any error concerning first-degree murder required reversal after a second-degree conviction.
5. Whether prosecutorial argument improperly prejudiced the jury.
6. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support second-degree murder and reject self-defense.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and life sentence for second-degree murder.
- The State was not required to call all eyewitnesses to the homicide.
- A prosecutor could request a verdict of murder if counsel believed the evidence proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A judge from another district could preside when authorized to hold court for another judge.
- The instructions on malice and justification were proper when read together; any error in an instruction relating only to first-degree murder was harmless because the verdict was for second-degree murder.
- The instructions, considered as a whole, sufficiently conveyed the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.
- Alleged prosecutorial misconduct did not prejudice the defendant.
- The evidence permitted the jury to find Ross fired both shots, that Robinson was unarmed, and that the killing was not justified.

## Legal Principles

- The prosecution has discretion in selecting witnesses and is not obligated to present every eyewitness; the defense may subpoena additional witnesses.
- Jury instructions are reviewed as a whole; isolated omissions or phrasing defects do not require reversal if the overall charge correctly states the law, including the reasonable-doubt standard.
- An erroneous instruction on a greater offense can be harmless when the defendant is convicted only of a lesser offense and the error could not have affected the necessary findings for the conviction returned.
- Prosecutors may argue reasonable inferences from the evidence and request a particular degree of conviction, absent prejudicial misstatements or improper conduct.
- Appointment of a legislator-attorney to assist the prosecution, and later participation as prosecutor by an attorney who previously acted as a judge in a related matter, is not disqualifying absent a specific prohibition or resulting prejudice.
- A criminal conviction will be upheld where the evidence supports the verdict and the jury’s rejection of self-defense rests on permissible credibility and fact determinations.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Ross’s second-degree murder conviction, concluding that trial administration was lawful, prosecutorial participation and argument did not warrant reversal, the instructions—viewed in full—properly guided the jury (with any first-degree error harmless), and the evidence supported the jury’s finding that the killing was not in self-defense.


Ross v. State, 8 Wyo. 351, 57 P. 924 (Wyo. 1899)