State v. Grear

• Decision Date: 19 November 1881
• Citation: 10 N.W. 472,28 Minn. 426
• Parties: State of Minnesota v. Charles Grear
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

10 N.W. 472

28 Minn. 426

State of Minnesota v. Charles Grear

Supreme Court of Minnesota

November 19, 1881

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Vanderburgh, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.

Order reversed, and a new trial ordered.

A. N Merrick, for appellant.

William J. Hahn, Attorney General, for the State.

OPINION

Dickinson, J.

The defendant was indicted for an assault, being armed with a dangerous weapon, with intent to do great bodily harm. Upon trial he was convicted of this offence. Upon bill of exceptions, motion was made for a new trial, and from an order overruling the same this appeal was taken.

Upon the trial, the state called a witness by whose testimony it was proposed to prove statements of the defendant in the nature of a confession. Objection was made to this, upon the ground tat, as was claimed, the defendant was so intoxicated at the time of the alleged confession that he did not know what he was saying, and defendant's counsel claimed the right to examine the witness upon this point before his evidence of the confession should be received, and offered also to call other witnesses to the same fact at the same stage of the trial. This was refused by the court, and exception was taken. The court was right. Intoxication of the accused at the time when he may have made a confession would have affected the weight of the confession as evidence against himself, but would not go to exclude the confession from being put in evidence. Com. v. Howe, 9 Gray 110; Whart. Cr. Ev. 675-6. That degree of intoxication which leaves one capable of making a narration of past events, or of stating his own participation in a crime, is not sufficient to exclude the inculpatory statement from the consideration of the jury.

It appears that the defendant also relied upon the fact of intoxication at the time of the alleged commission of the offence. In its charge to the jury, the court, speaking of intoxication as a defence, said: "In reference to this subject I have seen nothing more to the point than the language of the supreme court of California on the same subject: 'It is a well-settled rule that drunkenness is no excuse for crime. Insanity produced by intoxication does not destroy responsibility. When a party voluntarily makes himself intoxicated, drunkenness affords no defence whatever to the fact of the guilt, for when a crime is committed by a...