Ortwein v. Commonwealth

Decision Date04 January 1875
Citation76 Pa. 414
PartiesOrtwein <I>versus</I> Commonwealth.
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, WILLIAMS, MERCUR and GORDON, JJ.

Error to the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Allegheny county: Of October and November Term 1874, No. 210.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

W. D. Moore and M. Swartzwelder (with whom was F. Luty), for plaintiff in error.

T. M. Bayne, District Attorney, and R. M. Gibson (with whom was T. M. Marshall), for Commonwealth, defendant in error.

Chief Justice AGNEW delivered the opinion of the court, January 4th 1875.

The chief question in this case arises under the fifth point of the prisoner, which was negatived by the court below. It is this: —

5. If the jury have a reasonable doubt of the sanity of the prisoner at the time of the killing, they cannot convict.

The industry of the able counsel of the prisoner has collected and classified many cases on this point. While we think their weight accords with our own conclusions, we cannot help perceiving, in their number and variety, that the decision of the question should rest rather on a sound basis of principle than on the conclusions of other courts. In order to apprehend the true force of the principles to be applied, we must keep in the foreground the facts of the case before any question of insanity can arise. Insanity is a defence. It presupposes the proof of the facts which constitute a legal crime, and is set up in avoidance of punishment. Keeping in mind, then, that an act of wilful and malicious killing has been proved and requires a verdict of murder, the prisoner, as a defence, avers that he was of unsound mind at the time of the killing, and incapable of controlling his will; and therefore that he is not legally responsible for his act. This is the precise view that the statute itself takes of the defence, in declaring the duty of the jury in respect to it. The 66th section of the Criminal Code of 31st of March 1860, taken from the Act of 1836, provides: "In every case in which it shall be given in evidence upon the trial of any person charged with any crime or misdemeanor, that such person was insane at the time of the commission of such offence, and he shall be acquitted, the jury shall be required to find specially whether such person was insane at the time of the commission of such offence, and declare whether he was acquitted by them on the ground of such insanity." Thus the verdict must find the fact of insanity, and that the acquittal is because the fact is so found. The law then provides for the proper custody of the insane prisoner. This being the provision of the statute, it is evident that a jury, before finding the fact of insanity specially, must be satisfied of it by the evidence. A reasonable doubt of the fact of insanity cannot, therefore, be a true basis of the finding of it as a fact and as a ground of acquittal and of legal custody. To doubt one's sanity is not necessarily to be convinced of his insanity. It has been said in a nearly analogous case, "As to whether a reasonable doubt shall establish the existence of a plea of self-defence, I take the law to be this: If there be a reasonable doubt that any offence has been committed by the prisoner, it operates to acquit. But if the evidence clearly establishes the killing by the prisoner, purposely, with a deadly weapon, an illegal homicide of some kind is established, and the burden then falls upon the prisoner, and not on the Commonwealth, to show that it was excusable as an act of self-defence. If, then, his extenuation is in doubt, he cannot be acquitted of all crime, but must be convicted of homicide in some one of its grades — manslaughter at least:" Commonwealth v. Drum, 8 P. F. Smith 22. Such also was the opinion of the late Chief Justice Lewis, a most excellent criminal law judge, when president of the Lancaster county Oyer and Terminer, in the trial of John Haggerty, in the year 1847: Lewis's U. S. Criminal Law, p. 402. He said, p. 406: "The jury will decide upon the degree of intoxication, if any existed, and upon the existence of insanity. The burden of proof of this defence rests upon the prisoner; the fact of killing under circumstances of deliberation detailed in this case being established, the insanity which furnishes a defence must be shown to have existed at the time the act was committed. The evidence must be such as satisfies the minds of the jury." Thus, according to both statutory and judicial interpretation, the evidence to establish insanity as a defence, must be satisfactory, and not merely doubtful.

If we now analyze the subject, we shall find that this is the only safe conclusion for society, while it is just to the prisoner. Soundness of mind is the natural and normal condition of men, and is necessarily presumed, not only because the fact is generally so, but because a contrary presumption would be fatal to the interests of society. No one can justly claim irresponsibility for his act contrary to the known nature of the race of which he is one. He must be treated and be adjudged to be a reasonable being until a fact so abnormal as a want of reason positively appears. It is, therefore, not unjust to him that he should be so conclusively presumed to be until the contrary is made to appear on his behalf. To be made so to appear to the tribunal determining the fact, the evidence of it 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. It cannot, therefore, be said to be cruel to the prisoner to hold him to the same responsibility for his act, as that to which all reasonable beings of his race are held, until the fact is positively proved that he is not reasonable. This statement derives additional force from the opinion of Chief Justice Gibson in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Com. v. Reilly
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • 17 Octubre 1988
    ... Page 503 ... 549 A.2d 503 ... 519 Pa. 550 ... COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, ... Bernadette REILLY, Appellant ... Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ... Argued Jan. 21, 1988 ... Decided Oct. 17, ... Id. at 213 ...         The Court expounded upon this ruling one year later in Ortwein v. Commonwealth, 76 Pa. 414 (1875) ...         If we now analyze the subject, we shall find that this is the only safe conclusion for ... ...
  • United States v. Baldi
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 26 Octubre 1951
    ...today: Commonwealth v. Farkin, 1844, 2 Pars.Sel.Eq.Cas. 439; Commonwealth v. Freeth, 1858, 3 Phila. 105, 6 Am.L.Reg. 400; Ortwein 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;......
  • State v. Bryant
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 28 Noviembre 1887
    ... ... may add to the authorities then cited, as supporting the same ... views, Scranton v. Stewart , 52 Ind. 68; Curley ... v. Commonwealth , 84 Pa. 151; Robinson v ... Randall , 82 Ill. 521. The rule laid down in that case ... was one sufficiently liberal to protect the public, and ... the judgment was reversed. Staup v. Commonwealth , 74 ...          In the ... subsequent case of Ortwein v. Commonwealth , 76 Pa ... 414, the same learned judge, then Chief Justice, delivered ... the opinion of the court, in which he adhered to his ... ...
  • Com. v. Winebrenner
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • 28 Abril 1970
    ...Commonwealth v. Wireback, 190 Pa. 138, 42 A. 542; Alexander v. Commonwealth, 105 Pa. 1; Coyle v. Commonwealth, 100 Pa. 573; Ortwein v. Commonwealth, 76 Pa. 414. See also, IV Blackstone, Commentaries § Considering the charge of the Court in its entirety, as we must, we find no reversible err......
  • 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