Shults v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Nebraska
• Citation: 37 Neb. 481,55 N.W. 1080
• Parties: SHULTS v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 30 June 1893

37 Neb. 481
55 N.W. 1080

SHULTS
v.
STATE.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

June 30, 1893.

Syllabus by the Court.

[55 N.W. 1080]

1. Only such intimate acquaintances of a person accused of crime as have seen him almost daily for several months preceding the date upon which the alleged crime occurred are competent, as nonexpert witnesses, to testify as to the sanity or insanity of the accused.

2. Such testimony, however, must be strictly limited to such sanity or insanity, and confined to those occasions upon which the witness testifies to having observed the conduct and appearance

[55 N.W. 1081]

of the individual whose sanity is the subject of inquiry.

3. The rule permitting a nonexpert witness to testify as to the sanity or insanity of a party whose legal accountability is the sole matter in issue does not allow such witness to testify that, at a certain date, such party knew the difference between the right and wrong of an act at that time committed by him.

Commissioners' decision. Error to district court, Hall county; Harrison, Judge.

Cuyler Shults was convicted of murder in the first degree, and brings error. Reversed.

W. A. Prince and W. H. Thompson, for plaintiff in error.

Geo. H. Hastings, Atty. Gen., and Chas. G. Ryan, for the State.

RYAN, C.

Cuyler Shults was convicted in the district court of Hall county, Neb., of the murder of J. P. Farr, charged to have been committed in said county on the 28th day of August, 1891. There was no question that said Farr came to his death, at the time and place charged, from the effect of a gunshot wound inflicted upon him by said Shults. The defense was insanity, of which there was much evidence. It was shown that the accused was wounded in the right side of the head, by a fragment of a shell, on the 6th of April, 1862, at the battle of Shiloh; that since his discharge from the federal army the accused has become gradually morose,--at times almost savage towards the members of his family; that he has become, year by year, quarrelsome at times, and distrustful of his family and friends; that he frequently was cruel towards his cattle and horses; that, when crossed by either man or beast, he became much irritated, and on such occasions threatened to take the life of the animal or man by whom his displeasure was excited; that he sought solitude, and talked much to himself; that a medical examination showed that his left side was partially paralyzed; that his sleep was fitful; that, owing to a continuous pain in the region of the above-mentioned wound, the accused habitually slept with his hands locked across his head; that he seized frequently the bedclothes in his teeth, and bit and tried to tear them, at the same time gritting his teeth, and on one or two occasions it was testified that he foamed at the mouth. There was evidence that the night before the commission of the homicide the accused was agitated beyond reason by an act of Farr, which accused considered as an outrage towards himself and his family; that in speaking of it he shed tears on that day, and on the same day as, and just previous to, the killing of Farr, saying at each time mentioned that he had to kill Farr. Other evidence in the same direction was given, and there was also evidence of epilepsy of accused's mother. The wife of the accused testified that accused said that, by the use of intoxicating liquors, the pain which continuously existed in his head was deadened; and she further testified, as of her own observation, that such use enabled him to sleep when otherwise he could not. There was medical expert testimony that periodic insanity of a subacute character was indicated by the symptoms of the prisoner. The state insisted that the above conduct of the accused was owing to a violent temper, often aggravated by intoxication, but that no insanity existed. As the sole contention in this case was as to the sanity and ability of the accused to discriminate between right and wrong on the 28th day of August, 1891, we shall limit our observations to that, and incidental inquiries, giving the testimony of the witnesses on rebutttal at considerable length. (To a proper understanding of this evidence, it is proper to explain that the accused, for some years previous to the homicide, resided between eight and nine miles, in a southerly direction, from Grand Island.)

James McKnight testified that he had known the accused about four years. Lived within about a mile and a half of the place of residence of the accused. Was middling well acquainted with him. Saw him pretty often, but could not say just how often. Sometimes, once or twice a week. Sometimes, would not see him for a month, perhaps. Saw him quite frequently during the summer previous to that in which the evidence was given, and saw him and talked with him on the 27th of August, 1891. That during the time witness saw the accused he talked with him about as frequently as one neighbor would with another, but never had any business transactions with him. Had seen him drink in Grand Island, and once saw him under the influence of liquor when he was coming home from Grand Island, which was August 27, 1891. Following this testimony, the witness was asked: “Question. I will now repeat the question. You may state, Mr. McKnight, from your knowledge of Cuyler Shults,--gained by your acquaintance with him, as you have stated,--whether, in your opinion, he was sane or insane on the 28th day of August, 1891? Answer. I would say he was as sane as any man, as far as I could see.” On further examination this witness testified that he had never noticed any peculiar acts of insanity about the accused.

John Schwim testified that he resided at Doniphan, Neb., where he had lived for about six years. Had met the accused in Mr. Wolbach's store, where witness was bookkeeper, about seven years before the date of the trial. Since that, would sometimes see him every week, and sometimes once a month. During the preceding spring, on account of accused's sickness, he had not seen him during a period of two or three months. Witness further testified that his occupation was that of cashier of the bank of Doniphan; that for the last three or four years the accused had owed the bank

[55 N.W. 1082]

some money, and the bank had generally some collection notes against the accused, who was accustomed to visit the bank perhaps once a month. Sometimes there would be a lapse of two or three months. Witness testified that he had seen the accused about a week or two before the 28th of August, 1891. Accused was then at the bank, talking with witness. His condition was about as usual ever since witness had known him. Witness testified that he had passed the house of accused a couple of times. Talked with him about fishing,--a general conversation. This was in July or August, 1891. The habits of the accused were irregular. Witness had never seen the accused take a drink, and, in relation to being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, seemed always to be the same; that is, witness could not distinguish it, if he was under the influence of liquor. Upon this preliminary examination the following question was propounded to the witness: “Question. Now, from what he appeared to you on the 28th day of August, and from what you have known of him during all the time during the last seven years, in your judgment or opinion, was the man sane or insane on the 28th day of August, 1891?” Objection duly made, overruled, and exception taken. The court remarked: “I think he may answer now. It is pretty close, though.” Whereupon witness answered: “Answer. I cannot form an idea if he had been sane or insane. Mr. Shults was eccentric. I cannot draw the line between insanity and eccentricity. I am no expert. Q. What does his eccentricity consist of, Mr. Schwim? A. Well, first, he had a mania for lying. Q. What else, if anything? A. And telling stories in general. Q. What else? A. Oh he had-- I don't think he ever liked work very much. He wanted to go fishing and hunting. It was one of his passions. Q. That was one of his eccentricities, was it? A. Well, it was more of a passion, I should think. And lying I should class as an eccentricity. A man may have a passion for lying, the same as he may have for stealing, or kleptomania. I don't know as there is any man that has the habit of lying when it don't do any good. Q. From your knowledge of this man during these seven years, and the many times you have met him and talked with him, with all of his eccentricities, taking them together, what, in your opinion, was the man's ability to judge between right and wrong in this particular crime, committed on the 28th of August, 1891?” Due objection was made, overruled, and exception taken. Witness answered: “A. I think when-- Of course, I don't know what state his mind was in at that time--the day he committed the crime; but, from the appearance he gave me the last few times, I think he could distinguish between right and wrong.”

Mr. Henry Denman testified, on rebuttal, that he lived 11 miles southwest of Grand Island at the time of testifying, where he had lived over 22 years. Had known Cuyler Shults between 12 and 15 years, and during the time of his acquaintance with Shults had seen him two or three times a week,--sometimes, might be a month, probably not more than once or twice a month, and again witness might not see him for two months. During the time of his acquaintance with the accused, witness had held the office of sheriff and jailer of the county for two years. Had seen the accused in the jail perhaps three or four times during those two years, which were 1882 and 1883. Since the last date above given, witness had lived on his farm, in the neighborhood of 2 1/2 miles from the residence of the accused, during which time he had seen him every two or three days. Often saw him on the road, and sometimes in the village of Doniphan; sometimes in the city of Grand Island. Sometimes he would see him once a week, and...