Laros v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 11 June 1877
• Citation: Laros v. Commonwealth, 84 Pa. 200 (Pa. 1877)
• Parties: Laros <I>versus</I> The Commonwealth.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

84 Pa. 200

LarosversusThe Commonwealth.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 27, 1877.

June 11, 1877.

March 27th 1877.

Before AGNEW, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, WOODWARD and STERRETT, JJ.SHARSWOOD, J., absent

Error to the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Northampton county:Of January Term 1877, No. 86.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

W. S. Kirkpatrick and Henry W. Scott, for plaintiff in error.— After a witness has been admitted to testify as an expert, evidence cannot be given to the jury of the opinions of other experts in the same science, as to whether the witness was qualified to draw correct conclusions in the science on which he had been examined: Tullis v. Kidd, 12 Ala. 648;DePhue v. State, 44 Id. 32.

The objection to the questions covered by the 8th and 9th assignments, was in permitting the witnesses to testify to conclusions which were the province of the jury to determine.Confessions and admissions made before the coroner by the person suspected are not admissible: Commonwealth v. Harman, 4 Barr 269;Greenleaf's Ev., vol. 1, sect. 226;Rex v. Tubby, 5 C. & P. 530;Reg v. Owen, 9 Id. 238;Reg v. Garbett, 2 C. & K. 474;Rex v. Lewis, 6 C. & P. 161;Rex v. Davis, Id. 177.

In the offer excepted to in the eleventh assignment it was proposed to prove the admissions of an independent and distinct offence: East's Pleas of the Crown 658.It is always pertinent to give in evidence, in issues involving insanity, the instances of mental unsoundness in the direct ancestry of the party whose sanity is in question, especially when offered in corroboration of other evidence tending to show insanity: Wharton & Stille's Med. Jur., vol. 1, sect. 373, quoting the opinion of GIBSON, C. J., in Smith v. Kramer, 1 Am.LawReg. 353, where this doctrine is ably vindicated.The social and family surroundings are an important element in passing upon the conduct of men and determining whether their conduct indicates sanity or insanity.The education and religious instruction to which a person was subject is certainly important in determining whether the conduct submitted as evidence of insanity is the natural and probable result of early neglect and vicious influences, or whether it is exceptional, extraordinary and counter to the usual influences on character resulting from proper education and training.

Evidence of insanity is not to be limited to the immediate relations of the prisoner: Whart. on Med. Jur., vol. 1, sect. 375; Baxter v. Abbott, 7 Gray (Mass.) 81; Christiana Edmunds's Case, referred to in Whart. on Med. Jur., vol. 1, sect. 375.

Suicide is an act so contrary to all human instincts that it has almost the force of a presumption of insanity.

The doctrine contained in the 4th, 9th, 11th and 12th points has been abundantly sustained in this state: Mosler v. Commonwealth, 4 Barr 267;Ortwein v. Commonwealth, 26 P. F. Smith 424;Brown v. Commonwealth, 28 Id. 122; Commonwealth v. Winnemore, 1 Brewster 370; Commonwealth v. Freth, 3 Phila. 105; Whart.Med. Jur., vol. 1, sect. 160.

The atrocity of an act when isolated and alone would not be proof of insanity; perhaps it would not be evidence from which it could be inferred.But when connected with the other facts in this case it was highly proper "as an element in the proof," and in connection with the offer contained in the 14th and 15th assignments of error, which we were prepared to prove as proposed, but were refused.

The court erred in the 30th assignment.The defendant was to prove by the weight of the evidence that he was suffering from a temporary insanity, produced by epilepsy, at the time of the commission of the crime; this the jury might have found, if to it had not been added the other requirements by the charge of the court, which the defendant was not called upon to prove either by the weight of the evidence or by any evidence.It was no part of the case.If the prisoner had purchased the poison, it might have been for an innocent purpose; and if for a guilty purpose, it may have been totally different from that alleged by the Commonwealth; and if purchased for the identical guilty purpose charged against him, he was entitled to be acquitted upon the ground of insanity, if he proved himself mentally irresponsible at the time of the crime.

For trial by jury on the question of insanity, the court below substituted that "by inspection and examination."In this we submit the court was in error, as the defendant was entitled to a venire for jurymen to whom to submit the proofs for his plea.The constitutional rights of the prisoner were violated in the examination to which he was subjected by the court.

J. C. Merrill,District Attorney, and Edward J. Fox, for defendant in error.—Dr. Green was not asked for his opinion, but what was his knowledge of Dr. McIntire's capacity.The rule of law, which excludes admissions made before a coroner at the inquest, will not apply to the admissions made by this prisoner: Rex v. Butcher, 1 Leach 301;Warickshall's Case, 2 EastP. C. 268;Rex v. Gould, 9 C. & P. 364; Hudson v. State, 9 Yerger 408;1 Greenl. Evid. 231;Archibald's Crim. Prac. & Plead., vol. 1, p. 424.A moral or immoral education would in no way tend to show an insane taint in the prisoner's constitution; nor would the kindness or unkindness of his family towards him reflect upon his sanity.The questions do not involve any act or conduct of the prisoner indicating unsoundness of mind.A crime because unnatural is in itself no proof of insanity: Commonwealth v. Mosler, 4 Barr 268;Ortwein v. Commonwealth, 26 P. F. Smith 425.In Commonwealth v. Mosler, supra, it was held that a man was not responsible if impelled by a coercion drawing the mind to consequences which it saw, but could not avoid or resist; but here it is contended he is not responsible, if it not only saw, but understood them.This is an unreasonable limit to which to extend the doctrine of irresistible impulse as an excuse for crime.

There was no evidence to show that at any time or upon any occasion the defendant had not freedom of will or moral action.Because he was subject to hallucinations or delusions does not disprove this fact.A man may be sane upon a single topic and insane upon another; unless insane upon the subject of crime he would be responsible: Whart.Crim. Law, sect. 23.

The evidence in this case does not support the theory in regard to epileptic fits, and their effect upon the mind of the prisoner, or their effect generally.

It would be impossible for courts to try and sentence criminals, if each man might, by pleading insanity after verdict, compel the empanelling of a jury to try the facts.

A method is provided to ascertain the truth of such an allegation after verdict by the Act of May 14th 1874, Pamph.L. 160, sect. 1; and as the prisoner did not adopt this method, the court, after satisfying its conscience by inspection and examination, had a right to pronounce sentence, and this examination and inspection, we submit, is a question that is left to the discretion of the court and trial by jury is not of right: Bond v. Tennessee, Mart. &Yerg. 143;Freeman v. People, 4 Denio 19, 20;4 Black. Com. 395.

Chief Justice AGNEWdelivered the opinion of the court, June 11th 1877.

On reading these assignments of error the first impression is that some of them must be sustained.But a careful review of the testimony, running in its current and along with the bills of exceptions as they were taken, discloses that they are groundless.The case was carefully tried, and the rulings fair and substantially correct.In such a case as this slight inaccuracies, doing no substantially hurt to the prisoner, ought not to turn aside the course of justice.The desperate condition of offenders often leads to many shifts to escape.Insanity is a common resort, but the burthen of its proof lies on the prisoner, and it is not every propositionhe makes must be allowed, especially when it tends to mislead the jury.

Some of the assignments were not proper and others pressed are not tenable.We shall confine our discussion to those most strongly...