State v. Parks
| Decision Date | 25 October 1899 |
| Citation | 44 A. 899,93 Me. 208 |
| Parties | STATE v. PARKS. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
(Official.)
Exceptions from supreme judicial court, York county.
Frank P. Parks, who was indicted for the murder of Mary Tarlton at Kittery on January 23, 1899, was found guilty by a jury trial at the following term in York county.
At the trial the defendant offered evidence tending to show that at the time of the killing of deceased, and before, he had a mental disease called "inebriety"; that said mental disease manifested itself and was characterized by an uncontrollable, overwhelming craving for intoxicating liquors; that he drank liquor on the day of the killing, and while he had such mental disease, and in consequence of it; and that he drank so much liquor on that day, before the killing, that at the time of the killing he did not know what he was doing.
The court charged the Jury that it was incumbent on the defendant to show by a preponderance of evidence that he had the mental disease, and that he drank the liquor and became intoxicated because of such disease, and that the killing was the result of the disease, and of the drinking of the liquor in consequence thereof to such an extent that he did not know what he was doing when be killed the deceased. The defendant excepted to this part of the charge. Overruled.
Argued before EMERY, HASKELL, STROUT, SAVAGE, and FOGLER, JJ.
W. T. Haines, Atty. Gen., and W. S. Mathews, Co. Atty., for the State.
Thos. H. Simes and Saml. W. Emery, for defendant.
The instruction of the presiding justice, to which the respondent excepts, is in accordance with the law laid down by this court in State v. Lawrence, 57 Me. 574.
We reaffirm the decision in that case, believing it to be sound in principle, and supported by the weight of authority in this country.
Exceptions overruled. Judgment for state.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pressler
...Mo. 404; State v. Bell, 136 Mo. 120; People v. Bell, 49 Cal. 485; People v. Allender, 117 Cal. 81; People v. Hettick, 126 Cal. 425; State v. Parks, 93 Me. 208; State Quigley, 26 R.I. 263; State v. Clark, 34 Wash. 485; Carr v. State, 96 Ga. 284; Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. 577; State v. Scott,......
-
State v. Park
...See also State v. Arsenault, supra; State v. Quigley, 135 Me. 435, 199 A. 269; State v. Turner, 126 Me. 376, 138 A. 562; State v. Parks, 93 Me. 208, 44 A. 899. The respondent in requesting the instruction seeks to have us adopt the rule that upon the introduction of some evidence of mental ......
-
State v. Clark
...47 P. 945; State v. Trout, 74 Iowa, 545, 38 N.W. 405, 7 Am. St. Rep. 499; Moore v. Commonwealth, 92 Ky. 630, 18 S.W. 833; State v. Parks, 93 Me. 208, 44 A. 899; Commonwealth v. Eddy, 7 Gray, 583; State Grear, 29 Minn. 221, 13 N.W. 140; State v. Bell, 136 Mo. 120, 67 S.W. 823; State v. Lewis......
-
State v. Turner
...previous instructions on this point following the rule laid down in State v. Lawrence, 57 Me. 574, and affirmed in State v. Parks, 93 Me. 208, 44 A. 899. The trial judge did not err either in refusing the requested instruction or in the statement of the law which he There is nothing in the ......