State v. Hansen
| Decision Date | 03 April 1894 |
| Citation | 25 Or. 391,36 P. 296 |
| Parties | STATE v. HANSEN. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
On rehearing. Petition overruled.
For prior report, see 35 P. 976.
The defendant, in his petition for a rehearing, contends that the state having, as a part of its case, introduced evidence of the defendant's mental condition, tending to raise an inference that he was, at the time of committing the act charged, incapable of forming a design, and this inference having been strengthened by the evidence for the defendant, therefore the burden of proof was upon the state to establish the defendant's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt, and not upon the defendant to establish his insanity by the same degree of proof. In State v. Hill, 14 So. 294, the supreme court of Louisiana held that, though the state had introduced evidence tending to show incapacity to form a design to kill, the defense was, nevertheless, special, and, like any other, must be proved by the party urging it, to the satisfaction of the jury, and that it was not the duty of the state to prove a negative, by showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's state of intoxication was of a degree not to interfere with his judgment and intelligence, or preclude the possibility of his entertaining malice towards the deceased. In State v. Coleman, 27 La.Ann. 691, the following charge was held to be undoubtedly correct: "Drunkenness is no excuse for a crime, and any state of mind resulting from drunkenness, unless it be a permanent and continuous result, still leaves the person responsible for his acts." The court properly charged the jury that the defendant must have had sufficient mind to know that the contemplated act was wrong, and sufficient will power to refrain from its commission; and the jury, under proper instructions, having found against the defendant upon these questions, the petition for a rehearing must be denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Garver
... ... Grieco, 184 Or. 253, ... 195 P.2d 183. The effect of the presumption, therefore, is ... not to shift the burden of proof, though it may be to impose ... upon the state the burden of going forward with the evidence ... Weihofen, supra. See, Hansen v. Oregon-Wash. R. & N ... Co., 97 Or. 190, 210, 188 P. 963, 191 P. 655. Under our ... decisions a presumption of law is evidence, and it is the ... duty of the court, when requested, to instruct the jury upon ... such a presumption: Ritchie v. Thomas, Or., 224 P.2d ... ...
-
State v. Wallace
...Union in which that affirmative defense must be proved by the defendant beyond reasonable doubt. State v. Hansen, 25 Or. 391, 35 P. 976, 36 P. 296; State v. Riley, 147 Or. 89, 30 P. (2d) 1041. It is not for this court to nullify that rule, as it is established by valid legislative enactment......
-
State v. Lauth
...all the cases in which such defense has been directly considered." In further support thereof, see State v. Hansen, 25 Or. 391, 35 P. 976, 36 P. 296; Goodwin v. State, 96 Ind. McCarty v. Commonwealth, 71 S.W. 656, 24 Ky.Law Rep. 1427. Thus it is obvious that a paroxysm of jealousy or sudden......
-
State v. Savage
...as far as applicable, and no error was committed in this respect. State v. Anderson, 10 Or. 448; State v. Hansen, 25 Or. 391, 35 P. 976, 36 P. 296; State Bartmess, 33 Or. 110, 54 P. 167. The co-defendant, Frank Klein, having entered a plea of guilty to the joint indictment, it is contended ......