Plake v. State
| Citation | 23 N.E. 273,121 Ind. 433 |
| Decision Date | 11 January 1890 |
| Docket Number | 14,976 |
| Parties | Plake v. The State |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Marshall Circuit Court.
Judgment reversed.
C Kellison, for appellant.
C. P Drummond, Prosecuting Attorney, for the State.
The indictment charges that the appellant did unlawfully and feloniously touch and wound Frank L. Johnson by discharging into his person, the contents of a pistol, loaded with powder and ball, "with the intent then and thereby him the said Frank L. Johnson, feloniously, purposely, and with premeditated malice to kill and murder."
Counsel asserts that the indictment is bad, because it does not allege that the touching and wounding were done purposely and maliciously, but we regard this contention as entirely destitute of merit. Where an indictment charges that the contents of a pistol were discharged by the accused into the person of another with the intent to purposely, unlawfully and with premeditated malice kill and murder such person, it is sufficient. Keeling v. State, 107 Ind. 563, 8 N.E. 559; Williams v. State, 47 Ind. 568; Cronkhite v. State, 11 Ind. 307.
There was evidence upon the question of the appellant's mental incapacity which required the court to instruct the jury upon the question of criminal responsibility, and the court did give several instructions upon this subject. The entire series of instructions proceed upon a radically erroneous view of the law of criminal responsibility, and we do not deem it necessary to notice them in detail. We state a few settled principles, and adjudge the instructions to be erroneous because they are inconsistent with these principles.
If the evidence is of such a character as to create a reasonable doubt whether the accused was of unsound mind at the time the crime was committed, he is entitled to a verdict of acquittal. Polk v. State, 19 Ind. 170; Bradley v. State, 31 Ind. 492; McDougal v. State, 88 Ind. 24.
A person may have sufficient mental capacity to know right from wrong, and to be able to comprehend the nature and consequences of his act, and yet be not criminally responsible for his acts; for, if the will power is so impaired that he can not resist an impulse to commit a crime he is not of sound mind. Goodwin v. State, 96 Ind. 550, and cases cited; Conway v. State, 118 Ind. 482, 21 N.E. 285. If the lack of will power is the result of a diseased state of the mind, there is mental unsoundness within the meaning of the law; but if the will is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ballou
...v. Taylor, 118 Mo. 153, 24 S. W. 449; State v. Woolard (Mo. Sup.) 20 S. W. 27; Trogdon v. State (Ind. Sup.) 32 N. E. 725; Plake v. State, 121 Ind. 433, 23 N. E. 273; Jamison v. People, 145 Ill. 357, 34 N. E. 486; Hornish v. People, 142 Ill. 620, 32 N. E. 684; Ochs v. People (Ill. Sup.) 16 N......
-
Hill v. State
...108. Whitaker v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 676, 168 N.E.2d 212. Flowers v. State (1957), 36 Ind. 151, 139 N.E.2d 185. Plake v. State (1890), 121 Ind. 433, 23 N.E. 273. Goodwin v. State (1884), 96 Ind. 550. Stevens v. State (1869), 31 Ind. 485. Bradley v. State (1869), 31 Ind. 492. This court i......
-
Brewer v. State, 968S146
...supra; Whitaker v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 676, 168 N.E.2d 212; Flowers v. State (1957), 236 Ind. 151, 139 N.E.2d 185; Plake v. State (1890), 121 Ind. 433, 23 N.E. 273; Goodwin v. State (1884), 96 Ind. We are of the opinion that the instruction on insanity must be examined to determine if it......
-
State v. Pressler
... ... introduce evidence to raise this doubt, such evidence need ... not preponderate, but it is ample if it is sufficient to ... produce a reasonable doubt. (Hopps v. People, 31 ... Ill. 385; State v. Bartlett, 43 N. H., 244; Polk ... v. State, 19 Ind. 94; Plake v. State, 121 Ind ... 433; Dacey v. People, 116 Ill. 555; Hoteman v ... U.S. 186 U.S. 413; German v. U.S. 120 F. 666; ... State v. People, 23 Mont. 358; Maas v ... Terr., 10 Okl. 714; State v. Shuff, 9 Ida., 14; ... State v. Wetter (Ida.), 83 P. 341.) According to ... either rule it is ... ...