5.  That  mere  circumstances  will  not  authorize  a  conviction,
unless  they  are  so  strong  as  to  exclude  every  other  hypothesis
but  that  of  the  defendant^  guilt

6.  That  although  the  jury  may  be  satisfied  from  the  evidence
that  the  prisoner  killed  the  deceased,  yet  if  the  jury  are  satis-
fied firom  the  evidence  that  the  prisoner  liad  reasonable  grounds
to  apprehend  a  design  on  the  part  of  the  deceased  to  take  the
prisoner's  life,  or  to  do  him  some  great  bodily  harm  or  great
penonal  injury,  and  there  was  imminent  danger  of  such  design


1710  Head  v.  Statb.  [44  ISm.
being   aceomplished,   then  thej  must  find  the  prisoner  not
guilty.
7.  That  the  evidence  must  exclude  every  hypothesis  except
that  of  the  guilt  of  the  prisoner,  and  every  conclusion  firom  the
evidence  must  be  consistent  with  his  guilt,  and  inconsistent
with  his  innocence,  or  they  must  find  the  prisoner  not  guilty.
8.  That  it  devolves  upon  the  state  to  make  out  to  the  satis-
&ction  of  the  jury,  all  the  material  allegations  of  the  indict-
ment ;  that  mere  preponderance  of  evidence  in  favor  of  the
state  will  not  authorize  a  conviction,  unless  such  preponder-
ance satisfies  the  jury,  to  a  moral  certainty,  of  the  guilt  of  the
prisoner ;  and  if  ihe  jury  are  not  satisfied  firom  the  evidence,  to
a  moral  certainty,  of  the  truth  of  every  material  all^ation  in
the  indictment,  they  must  find  the  prisoner  not  guilty.
9.  That  unless  the  evidence  against  the  defendant  should  be
such  as  to  exclude,  to  a  moral  certainty,  every  hypothesis  but
that  of  his  guilt  of  the  offense  imputed  to  him,  then  the  jniy
must  find  him  not  guilty.
