Panton v. People

• Decision Date: 21 September 1885
• Citation: 2 N.E. 411,114 Ill. 505
• Parties: PANTON v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

114 Ill. 505

2 N.E. 411

PANTON

v.PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed September 21, 1885.

Error to Boone.

SHELDON, J.

The judgment in this case must be reversed for the giving of three erroneous instructions on behalf of the people, as follows:

‘The court instructs the jury that when a person charged with murder, and not affected with insanity as explained to you, sets up as a justification or defense that he killed such person in self-defense, to make such plea of self-defense availing, it must appear that the danger was so urgent and pressing that in order to save his own life, or to prevent his receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary; and it must appear also that the person killed was the assaliant, or that the slayer had really and in good faith endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given.

‘The court instructs the jury that it is not every degree or kind of insanity that will excuse the commission of a criminal act, and in this case if you believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the homicide charged, and at the time of committing the same that he was able to distinguish between right and wrong, and knew that the act committed was wrong and in violation of law, and that he was liable to be punished therefor,and that he had the power to abstain therefrom, then, no matter what delusion he may have had, nor what tendency to insanity from hereditary causes, such insanity would not constitute a legal defense in this case, and you should find him guilty of murder.

‘The court instructs the jury that by a statute in this state the prisoner is permitted to testify in his own behalf, but by such permission under the statute the jury are not bound to accept of the prisoner's statements upon the witness stand as to the truth. They have the right in determining how much, if any, credence they will give to his statements; to take into consideration the facts and circumstances in evidence in the case; the manner and conduct of the prisoner while on the witness stand; his interest in the result of the suit; and if from all such facts and circumstances in evidence, the jury believe that he has testified falsely upon any material point in issue in this case, then they have the right to entirely disregard his evidence, except so far as it may be corroborated by other credible proofs or circumstances in evidence in this case.’

In Roach v. People, 77 Ill. 26, a like instruction as the first was held erroneous, in that it would convey to the minds of the jury the idea that the defendants could not sustain their alleged justification of self-defense unless...