Davis v. United States
| Decision Date | 15 February 1897 |
| Docket Number | No. 577,577 |
| Citation | 41 L.Ed. 750,17 S.Ct. 360,165 U.S. 373 |
| Parties | DAVIS v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On October 13, 1894, defendant was indicted in the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of Arkansas for the crime of murder. A trial being had, he was found guilty, and sentenced to be hanged. This judgment was reversed by this court on the ground of error in the instructions of the court in respect to the matter of insanity. Davis v. U. S., 160 U. S. 469, 16 Sup. Ct. 353. A second trial was had, which resulted in a similar sentence, to review which this writ of error has been sued out.
The circumstances of the homicide were briefiy these, and in respect to them there was no dispute: The deceased and defendant had a misunderstanding in regard to the making of a sugar cane crop which the defendant was making for the deceased on land rented from him. About a week thereafter, and on September 18, 1894, the defendant took a gun, and slipped up to near where the deceased was at work picking cotton, shot and killed him while so at work, and while unarmed, and doing nothing towards harming defendant. He then ran away from the place where the shot was fired to the nearest town, and surrendered himself to the officers, telling them he had killed the deceased, and detailing the circumstances.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Dickinson, for the United States.
Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
The principal defense presented on this trial, as on the former, was insanity. Indeed, the circumstances of the homicide were such as to preclude any other. The deceased, peacefully at work, unarmed, and making no demonstrations against the defendant, was shot and killed by the latter, and this in consequence of a dispute more than a week old. The act thus done, if done by a man fully responsible for his actions, was unquestionably murder in the first degree. Counsel for defendant have filed no brief and made no argument. With the trial in the circuit court, suing out a writ of error, and filing assignments of error, their connection with the case ceased. If this were a civil case, undoubtedly, under rule 16 of this court, the writ of error would be dismissed, or the record opened, and an affirmance ordered without examination. And if it were a cirminal case of small importance, it is probable that the same disposition would be made; but as the offense charged, and of which the defendant was convicted, is murder, and the punishment death, we have felt it to be our duty to carefully examine the record, with all the assignments of error, in order to see that no injustice has been done the defendant. In this examination we have had the assistance of a brief prepared by the assistant attorney general, in which the views of the government are fully presented.
The first nine assignments of error refer to matters transpiring in the introduction of testimony. Some of the questions presented by those assignments have been already determined by this court in prior cases, and need not, therefore, be noticed in this opinion. The others are as follows: Several lay witnesses were called, who testified as to their acquaintance with the defendant, and their opinion as to his sanity. He also called two medical witnesses, Dr. J. C. Amis and Dr. T. J. Wright, each of whom had seen him after his arrest, and dur- ing his confinement in jail, and had observed his conduct, actions, and demeanor. While the record does not contain a recital of all the testimony of these witnesses, enough is disclosed to show that the court permitted full inquiry of each as to what he had seen or heard of the actions and sayings of defendant; permitted each also to give fully his opinion as to the mental condition of defendant, and his belief as to the latter's knowledge of right and wrong, and his ability to distinguish between them. Hypothetical questions were also put involving all the circumstances of the homicide, and the prior and subsequent conduct and appearance of defendant, and their answers received to such questions.
In the course of his testimony, Dr. Amis stated that defendant 'would sit down on his spittoon, and gaze down on the floor as if looking at some object, when none was there, manifesting no interest in anything that was going on; that, although violently ill, he was indifferent and unconcerned during his illness,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Acosta
...courts require the defendant to prove self-defense. Ever since the United States Supreme Court's decision in Davis v. United States, 165 U.S. 373, 17 S.Ct. 360, 41 L.Ed. 750 (1897), however, federal prosecutors have borne the burden of proof on insanity and self-defense. See, e.g., Frank v.......
-
Government of Virgin Islands v. Fredericks
...was often conjoined with and sometimes replaced by the "control" or "irresistible impulse" rule. E. g. United States v. Davis, 165 U.S. 373, 378, 17 S.Ct. 360, 362, 41 L.Ed. 750 (1897) (M'Naghten charge qualified by additional defense available if "(will) has been so completely destroyed th......
-
Bethea v. United Stated
...200, 8 Eng.Rep. 718, 722 (H.L. 1843). Subsequent standards have stressed volition and control. See, e. g., Davis v. United States, 165 U.S. 373, 378, 17 S.Ct. 360, 41 L.Ed. 750 (1897); Smith v. United States, 59 App. D.C. 144, 145, 36 F.2d 548, 549 (1929); United States v. Currens, supra, 2......
-
United States v. Dioguardi
...F.2d 934 (3rd Cir. 1952), cert. denied 344 U.S. 913, 73 S.Ct. 336, 97 L. Ed. 704 (1953). 12 See, e. g. Davis v. United States, 165 U.S. 373, 377-378, 17 S.Ct. 360, 41 L.Ed. 750 (1897); Davis v. United States, 160 U.S. 469, 486-487, 16 S.Ct. 353, 40 L.Ed. 499 (1895); State v. Camp, 110 W.Va.......
-
THE CORPORATE INSANITY DEFENSE.
...fact in the case, must be established to the satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.'") (quoting Davis v. United States, 165 U.S. 373, 378 (456) See Valerie P. Hans, The Jury's Response to Business and Corporate Wrongdoing, 52 L. & CONTEMP. PROBS. 177, 182-90 (1989). (457) L......
-
Providing those with mental illness full and fair treatment: legislative considerations in the post-Clark era.
...Davis v. United States, stated that the District Court had changed its definition of insanity to conform to an earlier Supreme Court case. 165 U.S. 373, 378 (1897) (providing a definition of insanity containing only a cognitive prong, just as in (62.) Morse & Hoffman, supra note 5, at 1......
-
§ 25.04 Definitions of "Insanity"
...Commonwealth v. Rogers, 48 Mass. (7 Met.) 500, 502 (1844).[91] Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. 577 (1887). [92] Davis v. United States, 165 U.S. 373, 378 (1897).[93] United States v. Pollard, 171 F. Supp. at 478.[94] Goldstein, Note 1, supra, at 67-79.[95] Slobogin, Note 48, supra, at 322 (footno......
-
§25.04 DEFINITIONS OF "INSANITY"
...1986).[90] . Commonwealth v. Rogers, 48 Mass. 500, 502 (1844).[91] . Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. 577 (1887).[92] . Davis v. United States, 165 U.S. 373, 378 (1897).[93] . United States v. Pollard, 171 F. Supp. at 478.[94] . Goldstein, Note 1, supra, at 67-79.[95] . Slobogin, Note 48, supra, a......