Wilson v. State
| Decision Date | 20 September 1897 |
| Citation | 38 A. 428,60 N.J.L. 171 |
| Parties | WILSON v. STATE. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Dissenting opinion. For majority opinion, see 37 Atl. 954.
GARRISON, J. (dissenting). The question upon which this court is divided is whether the intoxication that may be considered by the jury upon the degree of murder must be such as rendered the defendant incapable of forming an intention to kill, or whether it may be such as satisfies the jury that, as matter of fact, such an intention did not exist.
The trial judge adopted the former of these views, and charged the jury that the intoxication that might be considered with reference to the existence of premeditation was a condition of the defendant in which "his faculties were prostrated, and he was rendered incapable of forming a specific intent to take life." This view has been, in almost identical language, embodied in the opinion that speaks for the majority of this court.
I think that the other view is the correct one, and that, upon the question of degree, the issue was whether, as matter of fact, the defendant had formed a specific intent to take life, and not whether he had proved that he could not have formed it. The burden of proving the defendant's guilt, and the quantum of such proof, were in no wise shifted or varied by the introduction of the defendant's testimony as to his intoxication. The fact of intoxication was merely an added circumstance, which, if proved by the weight of evidence, should have been considered by the jury in connection with the question of intent, the burden of proving which beyond a reasonable doubt was on the state.
Such "a reasonable doubt," as was said in the case of Warner v. State, 56 N. J. Law. 686, 29 Atl. 505, "might spring out of the drunkenness of the defendant." And it must be apparent to every mind that there are states and stages of intoxication that would excite the gravest doubts as to the existence of deliberation and a premeditated purpose, and yet would not warrant the conclusion that the formation of such a purpose was beyond the capacity of the individual. To deny this efficacy to the defendant's testimony was to do him a legal injury. And in this connection it should be borne in mind that intoxication is not a defense, as insanity is; and hence the doctrine of Graves' Case, 45 N. J. Law, 203, does not apply.
But, apart from this, the effect of the substitution of the mental capability of the defendant for his actual mental state was an injurious shifting of the issue. By its indictment and by its proof the state said to the defendant, "You formed a specific intent to take human life." To this the direct and obvious traverse is, "I did not," and upon this issue all relevant testimony would be considered. But if the only answer permitted to the defendant were, "I could not," a totally different issue was presented, and the defendant was denied all benefit from the testimony going to show that "he did not," unless he also proved that "he could not."
A yet more fundamental injury to the defendant in thus shifting the issue was that it relieved the state from the burden of proving premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt, and compelled the defendant, in that respect, to prove his innocence beyond all doubt That this was the practical and logical effect of requiring the defendant to prove that his faculties were so prostrated that he was incapable of premeditation is clear. For if, in addition to proving by weight of evidence the fact of his intoxication, he must also, by like proof, satisfy the jury that the state of mind...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. White
...A. 313 (E. & A.1929); State v. Mangano, 77 N.J.L. 544, 549, 72 A. 366 (E. & A.1909); Wilson v. State, 60 N.J.L. 171, 184, 37 A. 954, 38 A. 428 (E. & A.1897); Warner v. State, supra, 56 N.J.L. at page 689, 29 A. at page 506. The same rule was applied with respect to the influence of narcotic......
-
State v. Humanik
...148 A. 764 (E & A 1930); State v. Schilling, 95 N.J.L. 145, 148, 112 A. 400 (E & A 1920); Wilson v. State, 60 N.J.L. 171, 184, 37 A. 954, 38 A. 428 (E & A 1897) with State v. Rodia, 132 N.J.L. 199, 39 A.2d 484 (E & A 1944); State v. Noel, 102 N.J.L. 659, 676, 133 A. 274 (E & A 1926); State ......
-
State v. Tansimore
...in the second degree and not the intent to take life as recited above. He relies upon Wilson v. State, 60 N.J.L. 171, 37 A. 954, 38 A. 428 (E. & A. 1897), and State v. Mangano, 77 N.J.L. 544, 72 A. 366, 367 (E. & A. 1909), where Justice Parker 'It is therefore settled in this state that mur......
-
Mayflower Industries v. Thor Corp.
...and from all the surrounding circumstances of the situation under investigation. Wilson v. State, 60 N.J.L. 171, 176, 37 A. 954, 38 A. 428 (E. & A. 1897); Van Houten v. State, 46 N.J.L. 16, 18 (Sup.Ct.1884). If there is evidence showing or tending to show that Mayflower had no actual belief......