Davis v. United States
Decision Date | 16 December 1895 |
Docket Number | No. 593,593 |
Citation | 160 U.S. 469,40 L.Ed. 499,16 S.Ct. 353 |
Parties | DAVIS v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Asst. Atty. Gen. Dickinson, for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 470-473 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court.
Dennis Davis was indicted for the crime of having, on the 18th day of September, 1894, at the Creek Nation, in the Indian Territory, within the Western district of Arkansas, feloniously, willfully, and of his malice aforethought killed and murdered one Sol Blackwell.
He was found guilty of the charge in the indictment. A motion for a new trial having been overruled, and the court having adjudged that the accused was guilty of the crime of murder, as charged, he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death by hanging.
At the trial below the government introduced evidence which, if alone considered, made it the duty of the jury to return a verdict of guilty of the crime charged.
But there was evidence tending to show that at the time of the killing, the accused, by reason of unsoundness of weakness of mind, was not criminally responsible for his acts. In addition to the evidence of a practicing physician of many years' standing, and who, for the time, was physician at the jail in which the accused was confined previous to his trial, 'other witnesses,' the bill of exceptions states,
The issue, therefore, was as to the responsibility of the accused for the killing alleged and clearly proved.
In its elaborate charge the court instructed the jury as to the rules by which they were to be guided in determining whether the accused took the life of the deceased feloniously, willfully, and with malice aforethought. 'Where,' the court said, 'a man has been shot to death, where the facts, as claimed by the government here, show a lying in wait, show previous preparation, show the selection of a deadly weapon, and show concealment to get an opportunity to do the act,—where that state of case exists, if there is a mental condition of the kind that renders a man accountable, why, there is crime, and that crime is murder.'
Referring to the evidence adduced to show that the accused was incompetent in law to commit crime, the court observed: 'Now, when a man premeditates a wicked design that pro- duces death, and executes that design, if he is a sane being,—if he is what the law calls a sane man, not that he may be partially insane, not that he may be eccentric, and not that he may be unable to control his will power if he is in a passion or rage because of some real or imaginary grievance he may have received, I say, if you find him in that condition, and you find these other things attending the act, you would necessarily find the existence of the attributes of the crime of murder known as 'willfulness' and 'malice aforethought." But the court said the law
Again:
Later in the charge the court recurred to the defense of insanity, and said:
In concluding its charge the court thus summarized the principles by which the jury were to be guided in their deliberations:
These extracts from the charge of the court present this important question: If it appears that the deceased was killed by the accused under circumstances which—nothing eles appearing—made a case of murder, can the jury properly return a verdict of guilty of the offense charged if, upon the whole evidence, from whatever side it comes, they have a reasonable doubt whether, at the time of killing, the accused was mentally competent to distinguish between right and wrong, or to understand the nature of the act he was committing? If this question be answered in the negative, the judgment must be reversed; for the court below instructed the jury that the defense of insanity could not avail the accused unless it appeared affirmatively to the reasonable satisfaction of the jury that he was not criminally responsible for his acts. The fact of killing being clearly proved, the legal presumption based upon the common experience of mankind that every man is sane, was sufficient, the court in effect said, to authorize a verdict of guilty, although the jury might entertain a reasonable doubt upon the evidence whether the accused, by reason of his mental condition, was criminally responsible for the killing in question. In other words, if the evidence was in equilibrio...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smart v. Leeke
...of murder. See In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 363, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1072, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970), quoting, Davis v. United States, 160 U.S. 469, 488, 16 S.Ct. 353, 358, 40 L.Ed. 499 (1895) (In order for the prosecution to obtain a conviction the State must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt the ex......
-
People v. Drew
...to the views expressed herein is no longer authoritative.13 Defendant points out that the federal courts (see Davis v. U. S. (1895) 160 U.S. 469, 16 S.Ct. 353, 40 L.Ed. 499) and about half of the states (see Note (1976) 64 Geo.L.J. 871, 890, fn. 114; Annot. (1968) 17 A.L.R.3d 146) require t......
-
State v. Hinckley
...Conn. 341, 355, 260 A.2d 587 (1969); State v. Kenyon, 134 Conn. 43, 49, 54 A.2d 585 (1947); see also Davis v. United States, 160 U.S. 469, 488, 16 S.Ct. 353, 358, 40 L.Ed. 499 (1895); 2 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure (1982) § 403. 3 The failure to instruct upon insanity, when a defe......
-
Young v. State
..."'there is reasonable doubt whether [the defendant] was capable in law of committing crime,'" id. at 797 (quoting Davis v. United States, 160 U. S. 469, 484 (16 SCt 353, 40 LE 499) (1895)); however, the Court emphasized that its holding in Davis "obviously establishes no constitutional doct......
-
THE REASONABLENESS OF THE "REASONABLENESS" STANDARD OF HABEAS CORPUS REVIEW UNDER THE ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996.
...174 (1949); Wilson v. United States, 232 U.S. 563, 569-70 (1914); Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245, 253 (1910); Davis v. United States, 160 U.S. 469, 488 (1895); Dunbar v. United States, 156 U.S. 185, 199 (1895); Hopt v. Utah, 120 U.S. 430, 439 (1887); Miles v. United States, 103 U.S. 30......
-
U.s. Supreme Court Decisions: 1974-1975
...common law the burden of proving provocation rested on the defendant, but this Court rejected such an approach in David v. United States, 160 U.S. 469 (1895), and the large majority of the states have abandoned the procedure and require the prosecution to prove the absence of provocation be......
-
Pronouncements of the U.s. Supreme Court Relating to the Criminal Law Field: 1982-1983
...of the evidence his or her claim of insanity." ABA, Standing Committee, supra. The recommendation follows Davis v. United States, 160 U.S. 469 which enunciated the federal rule requiring the prosecution to prove a defendant's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt once the defense introduces some......
-
Georgia's Safe Harbor Ruling for Affirmative Defenses in Criminal Cases Should Be Revisited
...AL., PSYCHOLOGY, MENTAL HEALTH, AND DISTRESS 30-31 (2013) (discussing the "medicalization of madness"); see also Davis v. United States, 160 U.S. 469, 492-93 (1895) ("It seems to us that undue stress is placed in some of the cases upon the fact that, in prosecutions for murder the defense o......
-
18 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 12.2 Notice of an Insanity Defense; Mental Examination
...raised the burden to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt rests with the government. Davis v. United States, 160 U.S. 469, 16 S.Ct. 353, 40 L.Ed. 499 (1895). This rule requires pretrial notice to the government of an insanity defense, thus permitting it to prepare to meet the issue. Furth......