State v. Hauser

• Citation: 131 N.E. 66,101 Ohio St. 404
• Decision Date: 06 December 1920
• Docket Number: 16580
• Parties: The State Of Ohio v. Hauser
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

131 N.E. 66

101 Ohio St. 404

The State Of Ohio v. Hauser

No. 16580

Supreme Court of Ohio

December 6, 1920

Criminal law-Evidence-Preponderance to establish insanity- Charge to jury - Correct and incorrect instruction given - No presumption jury followed correct rule, when.

1. In the trial of a criminal case where the defense of insanity is made, a charge of the court which places upon the accused in the making of such defense a greater burden than the furnishing of a preponderance of evidence is erroneous. (Bond v. State, 23 Ohio St. 349; Bergin V. State, 31 Ohio St. 111; Kelch v. State, 55 Ohio St. 146; State v. Austin, 71 Ohio St 317, in this respect approved and followed.)

2. Where two rules as to the quantum of evidence required of the accused are given to the jury, the one correct and the other erroneous, the court will not presume that the jury followed the correct rule to the exclusion of the incorrect rule.

3. In a criminal prosecution wherein the defense of insanity is interposed by defendant, a charge to the jury that "proof in support of insanity must be affirmatively established by positive or circumstantial evidence, which must satisfy you that he was not sane," is erroneous and such instruction is not qualified or modified by a further charge that "Before you can find * * * [defendant] was insane * * * you must be satisfied by a preponderance or greater weight of the evidence * * *." Such latter charge presents to the jury an independent or different rule as to the quantum of evidence necessary to establish such defense, and does not cure the erroneous charge theretofore given.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr Louis H. Capelle, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Louis Schneider, assistant prosecuting attorney, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. M F. Calvin, for defendant in error.

ROBINSON, J.

Albert Hauser was indicted at the January term, 1919, of the court of common pleas of Hamilton county, Ohio, for murder in the first degree. The trial resulted in a conviction of the defendant as charged. Motion for a new trial was overruled and judgment entered, error prosecuted to the court of appeals, and the verdict set aside and judgment reversed for error in giving to the jury special request to charge No. 3. At the trial the defense of insanity of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime was presented. Evidence was adduced tending to support the theory of insanity, and at the request of the state, the court charged the jury before argument as follows:

"3. I charge you that the law presumes every man to be sane until the contrary is shown by sufficient evidence, and the law presumes further that a man possesses a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes until the contrary is shown. Such proof in support of insanity must be affirmatively established by positive or circumstantial evidence which must satisfy you that he was not sane. Before you can find Albert Hauser was insane at the time he committed the crime with which he is charged, if you find that he did commit such crime, you must be satisfied by a preponderance or greater weight of the evidence, that at the time the act was committed, Albert Hauser was not capable of judging whether the act was right or wrong, or, that he didn't know at the time that it was an offense against the laws of God and man - that he was not a free agent in forming the purpose to kill."

While this charge No. 3 was requested and given under one subhead, and appears in the record as one paragraph, it in fact consisted of two complete sentences neither dependent for construction upon the other, and gave two complete and inconsistent rules by which the jurors were to be governed in determining the sanity or insanity of the accused. That part of the charge which reads, "Such proof in support of insanity must be affirmatively established by positive or circumstantial evidence which must satisfy you that he was not sane," clearly and unequivocally states the quantum of evidence which the accused must furnish to sustain the defense. It placed upon him a burden beyond and greater than a probability, the burden to...