Walters v. State
| Decision Date | 20 April 1915 |
| Docket Number | 22,645 |
| Citation | 108 N.E. 583,183 Ind. 178 |
| Parties | Walters v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Randolph Circuit Court; James S. Engle, Judge.
Prosecution by the State of Indiana against Paul V. Walters. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.
Reversed.
S. A D. Whipple & Son, John F. Lafollette, Emerson McGriff and Focht & Hutchens, for appellant.
Richard M. Milburn, Attorney-General, Bert Woodbury, Horace M. Kean Leslie R. Naftzger, Michael A. Sweeney, Omer S. Jackson and Wilbur T. Gruber, for the State.
Appellant was prosecuted and convicted upon an indictment in two counts one charging larceny and the other robbery. Appellant filed a plea of insanity. The only questions presented on appeal arise under the motion for a new trial. Several causes for a new trial were assigned but all of such assignments, except those relating to instructions, are waived by appellant's brief.
When the defense of insanity is interposed in a criminal case by a proper plea, the burden rests upon the State to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was sane at the time of the commission of the acts alleged as constituting the crime. This burden never shifts from the State. Every person is presumed to be sane and this presumption is sufficient to constitute a prima facie case in favor of the State where there is no evidence to dispute it and for this reason the State is not required to introduce evidence in chief to prove the sanity of the defendant. However, where there is some evidence introduced upon the issue of the defendant's sanity and the jury is called upon to consider such evidence for the purpose of determining his guilt or innocence, it must find that the State has sustained the burden which the law imposes and that the evidence in the case establishes the sanity of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. Such reasonable doubt as to a defendant's sanity may arise from evidence introduced by the State as well as from that introduced by the defendant.
The court of its own motion gave to the jury the following instruction: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flowers v. State
...State. Noelke v. State, 1938, 214 Ind. 427, 433, 15 N.E.2d 950; McHargue v. State, 1923, 193 Ind. 204, 139 N.E. 316; Walters v. State, 1915, 183 Ind. 178, 108 N.E. 583. The court gave to the jury State's requested instruction No. 9, as follows: 'Under our law, a person of unsound mind canno......
-
Moore v. State
...243 Ind. 245, 253, 183 N.E.2d 823, 827; Brattain v. State (1945), 223 Ind. 489, 496--497, 61 N.E.2d 462, 465; Walters v. State (1915), 183 Ind. 178, 179--180, 108 N.E. 58, 584; Freese v. State (1903), 159 Ind. 597, 604, 65 N.E. 915, 917--918. In Freese, supra, the Court '. . . The substance......
-
Young v. State
...See, Brattain v. State (1945), 223 Ind. 489, 61 N.E.2d 462; McHargue v. State (1923), 193 Ind. 204, 139 N.E. 316; Walters v. State (1915), 183 Ind. 178, 108 N.E. 583. The presumption of sanity is a legal presumption, and its existence eliminates the necessity for the State to prove sanity i......
-
Whitaker v. State
...Noelke v. State, 1938, 214 Ind. 427, 433, 15 N.E.2d 950; McHargue v. State, 1923, 193 Ind. 204, 211, 139 N.E. 316; Walters v. State, 1915, 183 Ind. 178, 179, 108 N.E. 583. The assignment of errors contains six specifications, however, because of the result which we have reached, we need con......