State v. McMurry
| Decision Date | 11 November 1899 |
| Docket Number | 11,489 |
| Citation | 61 Kan. 87,58 P. 961 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS v. CHARLES M. MCMURRY |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1899.
Appeal from Franklin district court; S. A. RIGGS, judge.
Judgment reversed.
A. A Godard, attorney-general, for The State.
H. P Welsh, for appellant.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of the crime of arson. Insanity, among other defenses, was relied on for an acquittal. The information charged the commission of the offense on the 11th day of November, 1897. The defendant offered in his behalf the record of an inquisition of lunacy by which it appeared that he had been, by the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the probate court, on the 21st day of April, 1890, found to be a person of unsound mind and incapable of managing his affairs. It further appeared by indorsement made on the record that he had been discharged from the asylum on the 7th day of February, 1891, "not restored to his right mind." An objection was made to the introduction of this record in evidence, which was sustained. In this we think the court erred. The time intermediate the adjudication in the probate court and the date of the commission of the alleged offense was considerable, it is true, but the general rule is that a condition of insanity, if shown to exist, is presumed to continue. This presumption is, of course, a disputable one, and evidence of the actual condition of mind at any particular subsequent time is properly receivable, but on the question of sanity the record of a proceeding in lunacy is properly receivable for the purpose of proof of an insane state of mind at a particular time in question, and thereby to give rise to the presumption of its continuance from that date.
We know of no subsequent time at which this presumption ceases. The lapse of much time during which the patient has not been confined for his malady, or known as a fact to be insane, may so materially weaken the presumption as practically to neutralize it, but nevertheless an accused person who alleges his insanity as an excuse for his act is entitled to introduce in his behalf all the admissible evidence he can command.
May the record of the proceedings in lunacy be received to prove the fact of insanity? We think it may. Ordinarily the judgment of a court is not receivable in a controversy to which a stranger to the judgment is a party, except merely to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth ex rel. Smith v. Ashe
... ... Petition for writ of habeas corpus, in case of Commonwealth ... of Pennsylvania ex rel. James Smith v. Stanley P. Ashe, ... Warden, Western State Penitentiary et al. Petition refused; ... reargument refused February 9, 1950 ... The ... order we made on the 23rd day of November ... upon the trial of an issue of insanity at a time subsequent ... to such adjudication ( State v. McMurry, 61 Kan. 87, ... 58 P. 961; Wheeler v. State, 34 Ohio St. 394, 32 Am ... Rep. 372; Hempton v. State, 111 Wis. 127, 86 N.W ... 596), it is ... ...
-
State v. Duncan
...40 A.L.R.2d 903; Davidson v. Commonwealth, 171 Ky. 488, 188 S.W. 631; Smedley v. Commonwealth, 139 Ky. 767, 127 S.W. 485; State v. McMurry, 61 Kan. 87, 58 P. 961; Wheeler v. State, 34 Ohio St. 394, 32 Am.Rep. 372; Hempton v. State, 111 Wis. 127, 86 N.W. 596; People v. Farrell, 31 Cal. 576; ......
-
Poole v. State
... ... offered upon the defendant's trial for the commission of ... a crime alleged to have been committed either prior or ... subsequent to the adjudication of insanity. Some such cases ... are: Davidson v. Commonwealth, 171 Ky. 488, ... 188 S.W. 631; State v. McMurry, 61 Kan. 87, ... 58 P. 961; Wheeler v. State, 34 Ohio St ... 394, 32 Am. Rep. 372; Hempton v. State, 111 ... Wis. 127, 86 N.W. 596; People v. Farrell, ... 31 Cal. 576; State v. Glindemann, 34 Wash, ... 221, 75 P. 800, 101 A. S. R. 1001; Bond v ... State, 129 Tenn. 75, ... ...
-
Whitney v. Zerbst
...of insanity is admissible in evidence upon the trial of an issue of insanity at a time subsequent to such adjudication (State v. McMurry, 61 Kan. 87, 58 P. 961; Wheeler v. State, 34 Ohio St. 394, 32 Am. Rep. 372; Hempton v. State, 111 Wis. 127, 86 N. W. 596), it is not conclusive and may be......