State v. Christmas
| Decision Date | 30 June 1859 |
| Citation | 6 Jones 471,51 N.C. 471 |
| Parties | STATE v. OBADIAH CHRISTMAS. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Where heredetary insanity is offered as an excuse for crime, it must appear that the kind of insanity proposed to be proven, as existing in the prisoner, is no temporary malady; but that it is notorious, and of the same species with which other members of the family have been afflicted.
Where counsel call upon a Judge to give instructions, which the case requires, and he refuses to do so, it is error.
INDICTMENT for MURDER, tried before CALDWELL, J., at the last Superior Court of Orange.
In making a jury, one was challenged by the State for cause, and being interrogated, answered that he had not formed and expressed the opinion that the prisoner was not guilty; whereupon the solicitor, for the State, requested that he might be ordered to stand aside until the panel was perused, stating that he expected to allege further cause. The prisoner insisted that the juror should be tendered to him, but he was ordered by the Court to stand aside. The prisoner's counsel excepted.
One ground of defense set up by the prisoner was insanity, and for the purpose of showing that it was a malady hereditary, in his family, he offered to prove by a witness, that an uncle and brother were both insane. The State objected, and the evidence was rejected. The prisoner's counsel excepted.
The mother of the prisoner was introduced to prove insanity, and she testified that three weeks before the homicide, she was sent for by the prisoner's wife, and went to aid in taking care of him. She said she found him laboring under derangement of mind; that she remained with him for two weeks, and during that time, he often endeavored to throw himself into the fire; that he several times tried to strip himself naked; that he tried to shoot himself; that he would run as though some one was pursuing him, and exclaimed that some one was pursuing him. She stated that he was always weak of mind. She further stated, that while she was there, he occasionally went into the neighborhood and staid all night; that she left him eight days before the homicide, and he then appeared composed, and had been so a day or two. She also testified, that these fits recurred at periods for the last two years, and she did not trust him to manage her business, though he and his family lived on her land, where she worked slaves. A witness testified that her character was good.
Several witnesses were called by the State, who testified that they had known the prisoner for eleven, twelve, and thirteen years; some for a shorter time, and they concurred in the statement, that he was addicted to intoxication, but they all believed him to be of sound mind.
The Court in charging the jury, said, in relation to the mother's testimony, that when near relations were witnesses, as in the case of a mother deposing for her son, the law regarded such testimony with a jealous eye, and called on jurors to weigh it with many grains of allowance. The prisoner's counsel again excepted. The jury retired and remained out several hours. They came to the Court-room at a late hour of the night, and made known that they could not agree upon a verdict, and asked for further instructions. Thereupon, the Court said to them, that if they differed in their understanding of the law as given them in the charge, the Court would re-charge them; but if they differed about the facts of the case, the Court could not aid them. One of the jurors responded, that their difference was about the question of insanity, and whether or not they should believe the prisoner's mother; whereupon, the Court repeated the charge above set out on that part of the case, and told the jury, they were to judge of her evidence for themselves.
The prisoner's counsel then requested the Court to charge the jury, that in passing on the mother's testimony, they had the right to consider her demeanor on the stand, the consistency of her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kemp's Will, In re
...show that the testamentary capacity of the decedent had been impaired by hereditary insanity. State v. Cunningham, 72 N.C. 469; State v. Christmas, 51 N.C. 471; In re Myer's Will, 184 N.Y. 54, 76 N.E. 920; Reichenbach v. Ruddach, 127 Pa. 564, 18 A. 432; Stansbury on North Carolina Evidence,......
-
Green v. State
...Garbutt, 17 Mich. 9; Laros v. Com., 84 Pa. 200; Baxter v. Abbott, 7 Gray 71, 81; 1 Wharton's Cr. Law, § 65, and cases cited. In State v. Christmas, 51 N.C. 471, 6 Law 471, it is said that "where hereditary insanity is offered as an excuse for crime, it must appear that the kind of insanity ......
-
State v. Wade
...trial court properly excluded this testimony. While it is true that evidence of hereditary insanity has been held admissible, State v. Christmas, 51 N.C. 471 (1859), there was not an adequate foundation for its admission here. In order for insanity among a person's ancestors or relatives to......
-
Green v. State
...17 Mich. 10; Laros v. Com., 84 Pa. St. 200; Baxter v. Abbott, 7 Gray, 71, 81; 1 Whart. Cr. Law, § 65, and cases cited. In State v. Christmas, 51 N. C. 471, it is said that, "where hereditary insanity is offered as an excuse for crime, it must appear that the kind of insanity proposed to be ......