State v. Wright

• Decision Date: 02 June 1896
• Citation: 134 Mo. 404,35 S.W. 1145
• Parties: STATE v. WRIGHT.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

35 S.W. 1145

134 Mo. 404

STATE v. WRIGHT.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

June 2, 1896.

HOMICIDE — INSANITY — AS DEFENSE — BURDEN OF PROOF — OPINION EVIDENCE — REMARKS BY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY — OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY.

1. Where the plea of insanity is interposed on a trial for murder, the burden is on defendant to prove his insanity at the time of the killing, though the evidence shows that he was, at a time prior thereto, insane.

2. On a trial for murder, the opinion of a physician as to the sanity of the defendant at the time of the killing, based on a hypothetical

case, and knowledge acquired by an examination of defendant, is competent evidence.

3. An objection that evidence is incompetent and immaterial is insufficient.

4. A statement by the prosecuting attorney, in argument, that he intended to show that depositions admitted in evidence for the defense were absolutely false, that the affiants did not know what they were saying, and that he meant that they were not properly certified, cannot be urged for reversal of a conviction, where defendant's objection to the remarks was sustained, and the jury instructed that the depositions were properly in evidence.

Appeal from circuit court, Vernon county; D. P. Stratton, Judge.

William Wright was convicted of murder, and appeals. Affirmed.

The court, upon its own motion, gave the jury the following instructions, to wit:

"(1) The defendant is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If you have a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt, you will acquit him; but such doubt should be a substantial one, founded on the evidence, and not a mere possibility of innocence. (2) You are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses, and as to the weight and value of their testimony. In determining such credit, weight, and value, you will take into consideration the character of the witness, his or her manner on the stand and of testifying, his or her interest, if any, in the result of the case, his or her relation to or feeling for the defendant or the deceased, the probability of his or her statement, as well as all other facts and circumstances detailed in evidence. And in this connection you are further instructed that, if you believe any witness has willfully and knowingly sworn falsely to any material fact in issue in the case, you are at liberty to disregard all or any part of such witness' testimony. (3) If you shall believe, from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant, William Wright, in the county of Vernon and state of Missouri, on or about the 29th day of June, 1895, did willfully, deliberately, premeditatedly, and of his malice aforethought, strike, cut, and kill Betty Wright with an ax, you will find him guilty of murder in the first degree, as charged in the indictment, and you will say so in your verdict. (4) `Willfully,' as used in these instructions, means `intentionally,' not `accidentally.' In the absence of qualifying facts and circumstances, the law presumes a person intends the ordinary and probable result of his acts. Wherefore, if you believe, from the evidence, that the defendant, with an ax, struck and cut Betty Wright in a vital part, and killed her, you will find that he intended to kill her, unless the facts and circumstances given in evidence show to the contrary. `Deliberately,' as used in these instructions, means `in a cool state of the blood.' It does not mean `brooded over,' or `reflected upon,' for a week, or a day, or an hour; but it means an intent to kill, executed by defendant in a cool state of the blood, in furtherance of a formed design to gratify a feeling of revenge, or to accomplish some other unlawful purpose, and not under the influence of a vile passion suddenly aroused by some provocation. `Premeditatedly' means `thought of beforehand,' for any length of time, however short. `Malice,' as used in these instructions, does not mean mere spite, ill will, or dislike, as is commonly understood; but it means that condition of the mind which prompts one person to take the life of another without just cause, justification, or excuse, and it signifies a state of disposition which shows a heart regardless of social duty, and fatally bent on mischief. `Malice aforethought' means `with malice and premeditation.' (5) In this case insanity is interposed as an excuse for the charge in the indictment. This defense is recognized by the law, and, should insanity be proven by the evidence in this case to your reasonable satisfaction, it will be your duty to acquit. The law presumes every person who has reached the years of discretion to be of sound mind, and this presumption continues until the contrary is shown; so in this case, when insanity is pleaded as a defense to a criminal charge, the fact of the evidence of such insanity, at the time of the commission of the act complained of, must, before you can acquit on that ground, be established by the evidence, to your reasonable satisfaction, and the burden of proving this fact rests on the defendant. (6) Insanity is a disease, located in the brain, which so perverts and deranges one or more of the mental and moral faculties as to render the person suffering from this affliction incapable of distinguishing right from wrong, in reference to the particular act charged, and incapable of understanding that the act in question was a violation of the laws of God and society. (7) The law does not excuse unless the insanity is of such a character that it actually renders the person incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong in respect to the particular act charged at the time of its commission. (8) Although you may believe, from the evidence, that the defendant did the killing alleged, yet if, from the evidence, you further find that, at the time he did it, he was in such an insane condition of mind that he did not know that he was doing wrong, — did not comprehend the nature and character of the act, — then such killing was not, in law, malicious or felonious, and you ought to find him not guilty, on the ground of insanity, and by your verdict say so. (9) To establish insanity as a defense, positive or direct testimony is not required; nor is it necessary to establish this defense beyond a reasonable doubt. It is sufficient if the jury is reasonably satisfied, by the weight or preponderance of the testimony, that the accused was, at the time he committed the act, incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong. (10) The law presumes every man is sane until the contrary is established by the evidence to the satisfaction of the jury; and when insanity in any form is set up as a defense, it is a fact which may not be proven, like any other fact. The burden of proving such insanity is on the defendant, and he is not entitled to the benefit of a mere doubt whether he was or was not insane. (11) The court instructs the jury that if they believe and find, from the evidence, that at the time he did the killing charged in the indictment the defendant was so perverted and deranged, in one or more of his mental or moral faculties, as to be incapable of understanding, at the moment he killed Betty Wright, that such killing was wrong, and that he, the defendant, was at that time incapable of understanding that his act of killing was a violation of the laws of God and society, they should find him not guilty. (12) If you find the defendant not guilty on the sole ground of insanity, you will so state in your verdict, and you will further find and state in your verdict whether or not he has recovered from said insanity."

The defendant, by his counsel, asked the court to give the following instructions to the jury:

"(1) The court instructs the jury that, in this case, the law raises no presumption against the defendant, but that every presumption of law is in favor of his innocence; and, in order to convict him of the crime alleged in the indictment, every material fact necessary to constitute such crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; and, if the jury entertain any reasonable doubt upon any single fact or element necessary to constitute the crime, it is your duty to give the defendant the benefit of such doubt, and acquit him. (2) The court instructs the jury that, before you can find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, as charged in the indictment, you must believe, from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did the killing willfully, deliberately, premeditatedly, and with malice aforethought. If any one of these elements is lacking, then you cannot find defendant guilty of murder in the first degree. (3) If the jury believe, from the evidence, that the defendant was insane at any time while he lived in the state of Alabama, or at any time since leaving that state, prior to the alleged killing, then the presumption of the law that he was sane and of sound mind at the time of said killing is removed and repelled; and in case they shall believe that he was insane and of unsound mind when he lived in Alabama, or at any other time since then, and prior to the killing as aforesaid, then and in that case the law presumes that such insanity continues up to and existed at the very time defendant struck deceased the alleged fatal blow; and in that case the defendant is not required to prove that he was of unsound mind at the time of said killing, but it devolves on the state to prove that, at the time of said killing, he was sane, and knew the right from the wrong. (4) You are instructed that the defense of insanity is one which is...