Defendant was indicted in the district court for Crow Wing
county for the felonious killing of one Albert Hagadorn and
was convicted of murder in the third degree and sentenced to
state prison for twenty five years. The facts are stated near
the end of the opinion. From an order, McClenahan, J.
denying defendant's motion for a new trial, he appealed.
Affirmed.
On the
question of insanity the court charged the jury that, when
the defendant undertakes to establish the defense of
insanity, the burden is on him to establish affirmatively by
a fair, reasonable preponderance of the evidence the
nonexistence of the normal, sane condition which the law
presumes every man to possess. If the jury should determine
murder in one of the degrees had been committed, then it was
their duty "to take up the question whether or not there
was such mental incapacity upon the part of the defendant at
the time he committed that particular degree of crime as to
excuse him, as to deprive his act of its criminal character
and if you so find you must acquit him.
"Sanity
and insanity are terms applicable to the mode of operation of
the mind as judged by some accepted standard of normality.
The accepted standard of normality is fixed in this state by
statute. No person shall be excused from criminal liability
except upon proof that at the time of committing the alleged
criminal act he was laboring under such a defect of reason
because of idiocy, imbecility, lunacy, or insanity, as not to
know the nature of his act, or that it was wrong. That
indicates the accepted standard of normality in this state.
Any man who commits a crime and knows the nature of his act
and that it was wrong cannot escape the consequences of his
act upon the defense of insanity.
"The
mode of operation of the mind is ascertainable from the
conduct of the person in question, that is to say, from the
effect produced by his surroundings on his mind when
responding by action to those surroundings. No single act can
be of itself decisive; but any act may be significant to some
extent, some inference is always possible. So a specific act
may indicate sanity or insanity, may throw light, one way or
the other, on the issue. If certain conduct be offered as
indicating insanity, it may be explained away as equally, or
more, consistent with some other hypothesis. That which
appears to be an irrational act or utterance may, in the
light of certain facts, be rational, or may be the result of
some other abnormal mental condition than insanity. Such
explanatory facts are always admissible, and when admitted
must be considered by the jury in connection with all the
other pertinent facts in evidence. A condition of mental
disease is always a more or less continuous one, either in
latent tendency or in manifest operation. It is therefore
proper, in order to ascertain its existence at a certain
time, to consider its existence, if such be the fact, at a
prior or a subsequent time. The degree of continuity varies
and there can be little certainty in the inference from one
period to another. As to its prior existence, the type of
insanity, if any, as preliminarily indicated by the
person's conduct, must be considered, in determining its
bearing upon the conduct of the defendant at the time of the
commission of the alleged criminal act. Assuming the
existence of different types at different times, and their
effect upon the conduct of the person at such times, the
first type may be, in a given case, so essentially variant
from the latter type as to be wholly irrelevant and without
substantial significance. And as to subsequent insane
conduct, if any, care must be exercised in its consideration
in view of the fact that the defendant, in a criminal case,
may be feigning insanity after the act charged.
"Now,
remember, gentlemen, I am only giving you general rules. I am
not taking any position upon the facts in this case. I have
no opinion to express upon the actual issue in the case. I
have, in the course of this charge, assumed certain facts to
be established beyond question, and I am justified in doing
that because there is no contradiction of such facts; but
where the evidence of witnesses does not agree, the question
is one for the jury solely and absolutely, and this question
of sanity or insanity is of that character. Evidence has been
introduced before you bearing upon both phases of this case.
The defendant took up the question and introduced testimony
which tended to show his mental aberration extending over
some period of time before the commission of this crime, if
it was a crime. The degree of aberration of this character,
if there was any aberration, is a matter for you to
determine, and its possible effect upon the act that he
stands charged with here is a matter for you to pass upon and
determine. If you find because of all the evidence in the
case, including that which relates to his past history, and
by his past history I mean his history before the commission
of this act, his conduct at the time the act was committed,
and his conduct following the commission of the act, that he
didn't know the nature of the act, or if he did know it
that he didn't know it was wrong, then the defense of
insanity is established and he is entitled to an acquittal;
otherwise, it isn't established, and you must return a
verdict in one of the degrees of murder that I have submitted
to you."
Homicide
-- Question of Manslaughter Withheld.
After
the defendant was assaulted in a saloon, he went to his home,
three and one half blocks away, procured a shotgun, and
returned and shot the person who had assaulted him. Held,
that the trial court properly refused to submit to the jury
the question whether the defendant was guilty of
manslaughter.
Charge
to Jury.
The
court should not instruct the jury with reference to the law
of manslaughter, unless there is evidence tending to
establish the elements which constitute that crime.
Murder.
When
the undisputed evidence shows that the homicide was committed
with a dangerous weapon with a design to effect death, or
under circumstances from which such a design must
conclusively be inferred, and after a lapse of time
sufficient for passion to subside, the crime is murder, and
not manslaughter.
Error
Cured by Charge to Disregard.
The
reception of incompetent evidence, which is afterwards
stricken out, is not ordinarily reversible error, especially
when the court instructs the jury that they are not to
consider such evidence.
OPINION
ELLIOTT, J.
The
defendant, Henry Towers, was convicted of the crime of murder
in the third degree and sentenced to imprisonment in the
state prison for a term of twenty five years. On appeal to
this court he contends that a new trial should have been
granted because (1) of the misconduct of the...
