Brock v. State

• Decision Date: 20 April 1908
• Docket Number: 12,849
• Citation: 46 So. 67,92 Miss. 712
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: JOHN BROCK v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

46 So. 67

92 Miss. 712

JOHN BROCK v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

No. 12,849

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 20, 1908

FROM the circuit court of Lamar county, HON. WILLIAM H. COOK Judge.

Brock appellant, was indicted for the murder of Louis Kohler; was tried, convicted, sentenced to be hanged, and appealed to the supreme court. The facts of the case, so far as necessary to an understanding of the decision made, are stated in the opinion of the court.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Frank Johnston, G. C. Mayson and J. T. Garaway, for appellant.

The defendant was entitled to have the evidence on the subject of his insanity at the time of the homicide to go to the jury and it is the province of the jury to decide upon this as upon any other fact in the case.

And, moreover, when any evidence, in the progress of the trial, "is adduced by either side tending to show the insanity of the accused, it then devolves on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime, including the sanity of the prisoner, because the legal presumption of his innocence ought to shield him from punishment unless it is clearly shown that he possessed sufficient reason to form a guilty intent."

This is the rule that is best supported by both reason and authority, and is certainly growing in favor. The quotation is from the text of 16 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 617 and note 3.

This is the rule that has been adopted in this state. Cunningham v. State, 56 Miss. 276; Ford v. State, 73 Miss. 734, 19 So. 665.

This court said in Pollard v. State, 53 Miss. 410, that the burden of proof in a criminal case, never shifts.

"There is but one question," said the court, "there can be but one question, in a criminal prosecution: Has the guilt of the defendant been established beyond a reasonable doubt? This is the experimentum crucis by which every juror must test the correctness of his verdict."

The court further said that whether the defense is negative or affirmative the "reasonable doubt must ever command a verdict of not guilty." Pollard v. State, 53 Miss. 410, 424.

These decisions are cited to show that evidence of insanity is always competent and must be admitted, and then that it is the province of the jury exclusively to consider it under the test of the reasonable doubt. Both expert and non-expert testimony on this subject was offered for the defense.

It has been universally settled as a rule of evidence, that the testimony of non-experts is always admissible. This is the rule announced by this court. Wood v. State, 58 Miss. 741; Grissom v. State, 62 Miss. 167; Reed v. State, 62 Miss. 405.

Any testimony that was offered tending to prove this issue should have gone to the jury, as it was and is the exclusive province of the jury, and not of the court, to consider and decide this as a question of fact, as they have the exclusive prerogative to consider and determine any other fact in the progress of a case.

George Butler, assistant attorney-general, for appellee.

The second and third assignments of error go to the admissibility of certain testimony which appellant claims tended to prove irresponsibility for the crime charged. The fact that appellant was drinking at the time of the killing was wholly immaterial. This did not excuse the crime, lessen his criminality or tend to prove insanity or that appellant did not know right from wrong. Insanity from whatever cause produced is a defense, but voluntary intoxication is not, nor...