Coyle v. Commonwealth

Citation100 Pa. 573
PartiesCoyle <I>versus</I> The Commonwealth.
Decision Date04 October 1882
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT and GREEN, JJ.

ERROR to the Court of Oyer and Terminer and General Jail Delivery of York county: Of January Term 1882, No. 192.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

H. I. Fisher and W. C. Chapman, for the plaintiff in error.

Edward D. Zeigler and Geo. W. McElroy, for the defendant in error.

[SHARSWOOD, C. J. "Clearly," as used in the answer to the defendant's third point is, in my judgment, equivalent to instructing the jury that they must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the prisoner's insanity, and we have decided that such an instruction is error.]

We submit that the answer to the point is in accord with the authorities. They all hold that the evidence must be such as to satisfy the jury that insanity exists. In Pannell v. Commonwealth, 5 Nor. at p. 268, Mr. Justice MERCUR, in delivering the opinion of the court, said: "That the proof of insanity must be satisfactory and not merely doubtful, to justify an acquittal, is undoubtedly correct . . . It may be established by satisfactory and fairly preponderating evidence." In Ortwein v. Commonwealth, 26 P. F. S. at p. 424, AGNEW, C. J., says: "The evidence of it (insanity) must be satisfactory and not merely doubtful, as nothing less than satisfaction can determine a reasonable mind to believe a fact contrary to the course of nature."

The burden being on the prisoner to satisfy the jury that insanity existed, how can the jury be satisfied except where the evidence of insanity clearly preponderates over the presumption of sanity? No distinction can be drawn between the expression "clearly preponderating evidence," as used in this case by the court below, and "fairly preponderating evidence," as used by this court in Pannell v. Commonwealth, supra. The meaning in each case is that the evidence must preponderate sufficiently to satisfy the jury. A judge is not required to use any particular formula of words, and we submit that the meaning conveyed to the jury by the expression complained of is in harmony with the decisions of this court; and the mode of expression, whether standing alone or taken in connection with the context and other parts of the charge, could not have been misunderstood by the jury. The point itself was properly refused, and the expression complained of was used incidentally, without emphasis, at the close of the answer to the point.

Mr. Justice MERCUR delivered the opinion of the court, October 4th 1882.

It was clearly proved that Coyle killed Emily Myers. That fact is admitted. The only defence set up is that he was insane at the time.

The first specification assigned for error is that in referring to homicidal insanity the court cited approvingly a portion of the language of Mr. Chief Justice GIBSON in Commonwealth v. Mosler, 4 Barr 264, in which it is said "there may be an unseen ligament pressing on the mind, drawing it to consequences which it sees but cannot avoid, and placing it under coercion, which, while its results are clearly perceived, is incapable of resistance. The doctrine which acknowledges this mania is dangerous in its relations and can be recognized only in the clearest cases. It ought to be shown to have been habitual or at least to have evinced itself in more than a single instance."

The able argument of counsel has failed to convince us that this was not a correct declaration of the law, or that it has since been ruled otherwise by this court. The validity of such a defence is admitted, but the existence of such a form of mania must not be assumed without satisfactory proof. Care must be taken not to confound it with acts of reckless frenzy. When interposed as a defence to the commission of a high crime, its existence should be clearly manifest; such defence is based on an unsound state or condition of the mind, proved by acts and declarations of violence. It certainly is not requiring too much to hold that it shall be shown in more than a single instance. We know no later case in this state where the precise question has been ruled otherwise.

The second specification relates to the effect which shall be given to the attempt of the prisoner to take his own life. This attempt was made immediately after he had fired the shots which caused the death of his victim. The language objected to was not in answer to any point submitted, but appears in the general charge. The court said: "It is, perhaps, proper to say to you, as matter of law, that even if you believe the prisoner really intended to take his own life, this would not be of itself evidence of insanity. It would only be a circumstance in the case to be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • Pullen v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 11 Mayo 1936
    ... ... 291, 78 Fla. 400; Cunningham v ... State, 56 Miss. 276; Pollard v. State, 53 Miss ... 410; State v. Flye, 26 Me. 312; Commonwealth v ... Kimball, 24 Pick. 373; Commonwealth v. Dana, 2 ... Met. 340; Ogletree v. State, 28 Ala. 693; Ford v ... State, 19 So. 665 ... 369, 9 Am. Rep. 242; ... Keil v. Commonwealth, 5 Bush. 362; Smith v ... Com., I Duv. 224; Dejarnette v. Com., 75 Va ... 867; Coyle v. Com., 100 Pa. 573; Cunningham v ... State, 56 Miss. 268; State v. Johnson, 40 Conn ... 136; Anderson v. State, 43 Conn. 514; State v ... ...
  • Commonwealth v. Karmendi
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • 12 Noviembre 1937
    ...Com. v. Clark, 130 Pa. 641, 18 A. 988; Hilands v. Com., Ill Pa. 1, 2 A. 70, 56 Am.Rep. 235; Abernethy v. Com., 101 Pa. 322; Coyle v. Com., 100 Pa. 573, 45 Am.Rep. 397; Goersen v. Com., 99 Pa. 388; Zell v. Com., 94 Pa. 258; Pannell v. Com., 86 Pa. 260; Pistorius v. Com., 84 Pa. 158; Meyers v......
  • United States v. Baldi
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 26 Octubre 1951
    ...v. Commonwealth, 1874, 76 Pa. 414; Sayres v. Commonwealth, 1879, 88 Pa. 291; Nevling v. Commonwealth, 1881, 98 Pa. 322; Coyle v. Commonwealth, 1882, 100 Pa. 573; Taylor v. Commonwealth, 1885, 109 Pa. 262, 271; Commonwealth v. Hillman, 1899, 189 Pa. 548, 42 A. 196; Commonwealth v. Wireback, ......
  • Com. ex rel. Smith v. Ashe
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • 20 Enero 1950
    ...at the time of the commission of the deed is required in order to excuse a homicide. Com. v. Mosler, 4 Pa. 264, 267; Coyle v. Com., 100 Pa. 573, 578, 45 Am.Rep. 397; 189 Pa. 548, 557, 42 A. 196, 69 Am.St.Rep. 827.' See also Wright v. Jackson, 59 Wis. 569, 18 N.W. In Whitney v. Zerbst, Warde......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT