It should be a clear and explicit state ment of the law applicable to the condition of the facts ; Finch's Ex'rs v. Elliot, 11 N. C. 61; Cannon v. Alsbury, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 76, 10 Am. Dec. 709; Williams v. Cheesebrough, 4 Conn. 356; Van Hoesen v. Van Alstyne, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 75; Com. v. White, 10 Mete. (Mass.) 14; Corn. v. Porter, 10 Mete. (Mass.) 263 ; Coleman v. Roberts, 1 Mo. 97; Jenness v. Parker, 24 Me. 289; Lett v. Horner, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 296; Whiteford v. Burckmyer & Adams, 1 Gill (Md.) 127, 39 Am. Dec. 640; People v. Murray, 72 Mich. 10, 40 N. W. 29. The defendant in a criminal case is entitled to a full statement of the law froni the court; Bird v. U. S., 180 U. S. 356, 21 Sup. Ct. 403, 45 L. Ed. 570. The charge should add such' comments on the evidence as are necessary to explain its ap plication ; Ware v. Ware, 8 Greenl. (Me.) 42 ; Kinloch v. Palmer, 1 Mill, Const. (S. (3.) 216; Nieman v. Ward, 1 W. & S. (Pa.) 68; Wyley v. Stanford, 22 Ga. 385 (though in some states the court is prohibited by law from charging as to matters of fact, "but may state the testimony and the law;" e. g., California, Tennessee, South Carolina, Geor gia, Massachusetts, etc.); and may include an opinion on the weight of evidence; Mitch ell v. Harmony, 13 How. (U. S.) 115, 14 L. Ed. 75; 2 M. & G. 721; Cook v. Brown, 34 N. H. 460; Swift v. Stevens, 8 Conn. 431; 'Dunlap v. Patterson, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 243; Hinson v. King, 50 C. 393; though the rule is otherwise in some states; Frame v. Badger, 79 441; Wannack v. Mayor, etc., of City of Macon, 53 Ga. 162; Jenkins v. Tobin, 31 Ark. 307; Barnett v. State, 83 Ala. 40, 3 South. 612; State v. Huffman. 16 Or. 15, 16 Pac. 640; People v. Gastro, 75 Mich. 127, 42 N. W. 937 ; but should not un dertake to decide the facts; Fightmaster v.
Beasly, 7 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 410; Sullivan v. Enders, 3 Dana (Ky.) 66 ; Beekman v. Bemus, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 29; Planters' Bank of Prince George's County v. Bank, 10 Gill & J. (Md.) 346; State v. Lynott, 5 R. I. 295; unless in the entire absence of opposing proof ; Chase v. Breed,' 5 Gray (Mass.) 440; Nichols v. Goldsmith, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 160; Rippey v. Friede, 26 Mo. 523; Jones' Ex'rs v. Mengel, 1 Pa. 68. A United States court may ex press an opinion upon the facts; Lovejoy v. U. S., 128 U. S. 171, 9 Sup. Ct. 57, 32 L. Ed. 389; Sorenson v. R. Co., 36 Fed. 166. In federal courts the trial judge may express his opinion on the facts, while leaving them to the jury; this power is not Controlled by state statutes forbidding judges to express any opinion on the facts; Vicksburg & M. R. Co. v. Putnam, 118 U. S. 545, 7 Sup. Ct. 1, 30 L. Ed. 257. It is improper to instruct which of two conflicting theories of the evi dence the jury shall accept ; Mitchell v. State, 94 Ala. 68, 10 South. 331. The pre siding judge may express to the jury his opinion as to the weight of evidence. He is under no obligation to recapitulate all the items of the evidence,• nor even all bear ing, on a single question; Allis v. U. S., 155 U. S. 117, 15 Sup. Ct. 36, 39 L. Ed. 91.
Failure to give instructions not asked for is not error; Winn v. State, 82 Wis. 571, 52 N. W. 775; People v. Ahern, 93 Cal. 518, 29 Pac. 49 ; Mead v. State, 53 N. J. L. 601, 23 Atl. 264; Small v. Williams, 87 Ga. 681, 13 S. E 589. A request to charge is prop erly refused though embodying correct prin ciples, where there is no evidence to support it ; Bostic v. State, 94 Ala. 45, 10 South. 602; Com. v. Cosseboom, 155 Mass. 298, 29 N. E. 463; Page v. Alexander, 84 Me. 84, 24 Atl. 584; Frost v. Lumber Co., 3 Wash. 241, 28 Pap. 354, 915; Everitt v. Walker, 109 N. C. 132, 13 S. E. 860; Guernsey v. Greenwood, 88 Ga. 446, 14 S. E. 709 ; Floyd v. Efron, 66 Tex. 221, 18 S. W. 497; Kitchen v. McClos key, 150 Pa. 376, 24 Atl. 688, 30 Am. St. Rep.
811; New York & C. Mining Co. v. Fraser, 130 U. S. 611, 9 Sup. Ct. 665, 32 L. Ed. 1031; City of Rock Island v. Cuinely, 126 Ill. 408, 18 N. B. 753 ; Spoonemore v. State, 25 Tex. App. 358, 8 S. W. 280. A request to charge may be disregarded when the court has al ready fully instructed the jury on the point. The court should refuse to charge upon a purely hypothetical statement of facts cal culated to mislead the jury; White v. Van Horn, 159 U. S. 3, 15 Sup. Ct. 1027, 40 L. Ed. 55. A judge is not bound to charge a jury in the exact words proposed to him by counsel, and there is no error if he instructs the jury correctly and substantially covers the relevant rules of law suggested ; Cun ningham v. Springer, 204 U. S. 647, 27 Sup. Ct. 301, 51 L. Ed. 662, 9 Ann. Cas. 897.
Erroneous instructions in matters of law which might have influenced the jury in forming a verdict are a cause for a, new trial ; Lane v. Crombie, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 177; West v. Anderson, 9 Conn. 107, 21 Am. Dec. 737; Doe v. Paine, 11 N. C. 64, 15 Am. Dec. 507; even though on hypothetical questions; Etting v. Bank, 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 59, 6 L. Ed. 419; Yarborough v. Tate, 14 Tex. 483 ; People v. Roberts, 6 Cal. 214; on which no opinion can be required to be given; Jor dan v. James, 5 Ohio, 88; Mitchell v. Mitch ell, 11 Gill & J. (Md.) 388 ; Pollard v. Teel, 25 N. C. 470; Smith v. Sasser, 50 N. C. 388 ; Dunlap v. Robinson, 28 Ala. 100 ; Whitaker v. Pullen, 3 Humphr. (Tenn.) 466; Nicholas v. State, 6 Mo. 6; Whitney v. Goin, 20 N. H. 354; Hammat v. Russ, 16 Me. 171; Miller v. Gorman, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 112; McDaniel v. State, 8 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 401, 47 Am. Dec. 93 ; Hicks' Adm'x v. Bailey, 16 Tex. 229 ; Raver v. Webster, 3 Ia. 509, 66 Am. Dec. 96; McDougald v. Bellamy, 18 Ga. 411; but the rule does not apply where the in structions could not prejudice the cause ; Johnson v. Blackman, 11 Conn. 342 ; U. S. v. Wright, 1 McLean, 509, Fed. Cas. No. 16,775; Rhett v. Poe, 2 How. (U. S.) 457, 11 L. Ed. 338. See Miller v. State, 3 Wyo. 657, 29 Pac. 136. Any decision or declaration by the court upon the law of the case, made in the progress of the cause, and by which the jury are influenced and the counsel con trolled, is considered within the scope and meaning of the term "instructions ;" Hil liard, New Trials 255.
Where on a trial for murder defendant's counsel asks the court to give its charge in writing, and after complying it gives orally other and additional charges, it is cause for new trial ; Willis v. State, 89 Ga. 188, 15 S. E. 32.
When an instruction to the jury embodies several propositions of law, to some of which there are no objections, the party objecting must point out specifically to the trial court the part to which he objects, in order to avail himself of the objection; Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Mackey, 157 U. S. 72, 15 Sup. Ct. 491, 39 L. Ed. 624.
"But no charge delivered by a trial court is to be judged by the same standards as a statement of law carefully elaborated and deliberately pronounced by a court of ap peals, sitting in bane. It serves a very dif ferent office. It is to call the attention of twelve men unfamiliar with legal distinc tions to whatever is necessary and proper to guide them to a right decision in a par ticular case, and to nothing more. To make almost any rule of law intelligible to the ordinary juror, it must be expressed in a few words. Qualifications and exceptions which the case does not call for are worse than useless, and those which are requisite it may be better to supply later, by a separate statement. A charge must be taken as a whole in determining its natural effect." Per Baldwin, J., in Sturdevant's Appeal, 71 Conn. 392, 42 Atl. 70.
See Thompson, Charging Juries.