Cleveland daily leader. [volume] ([Cleveland, Ohio]) 1865-1873, 1865-12-25

70 I'd degree, the fact OF drunkenness may be
= proved.
The experience Of mankind proves that
as a general rule a drunken man acts with
; less Judgement and circumspection, and
more fronasudden Impulse and passion than
be would act when sober, and as deliber-
alton and generalization are acts Of the
z mind requiring some degree of sedateness
and reelection, it is competent for the de-
fendaht to show his condition as to intoxiea1
ton, as tending to prove that at the time of
the commission of the act, he was incapable
of elaboration and generalization, or if he
was capable of them, that in consequence
OF drunkenness he was less likely to have
) meditated and deliberated upon the act
than he would have been if sober.
But ii you should find, from the evidence
. IN the case, that the defendant meditated
the act when sober; that he prepared
means and sought opportunities for its COM
mission; that he determined that in case he
should not be able to induce her to live with
him, or submit herself to his pleasure, he !
would take her life, and that he finally
Killed her in pursuance Ofthat purpose, such
killing would be murderin the lstdegree,
however insane or freHzied he may have been
at the timefrom drunkenness.
In passing upon the subject of delibera-
ton and generalization, you should carefully
consider the means and the manner of the
--AA16f NAS = aAA NAEAu VI kit
defendant at the time and Immediately
subsequent to the act, as well as that tend
ing to show his condition before the act.
DRUNKENNESS AND IDTOsYHcRAsIEs.
TIL defendant has offered evidence tend
ing to show insanity in one or more of his
lineal ancestors, and thai his W mind has
been frequently affected in a singular and
extraordinary manner as a consequence of
intemPerance. Upon this subject you nave
as well the evidence of witnesses here in
court, as the statements Of the defendant as
set forth in the affidavit made for the con-
tinuance of the case, which are to be re-
ceived and treated by you in all respects as
fDrs. Patterson and Kemble had appeared
IN open court and testified to those state
ments before you that while his gait was
unaffected and his physical powers ahnaE-+f
entity unfmpalred, his reason was elouded
and destroyed To- such a degree that it be-
came necessary to put him under restraint
TO prevent him doing deadly harm TO him
self and his friends; that such condition q
was not what is usually known as deliriuzp :
~tfe1ne1Sj but that 1t was a peculiar temporary
condition which some of the witnesses can S
not ascribe wholly to intoxication. This t
evidence, it is claimed, in. connection with r
evidence tending to. prove that the defend )
ant was intoxicated and delirious from u
anger, jealousy and disappointment at the
inn of the commission Of the act, exoner- s
ates him from responsibility before the Law.
If, gentlemen of the Jury, you should find
from the evidence that this temporary con- 3
dition did not in fact exist, but that it was
the direct result and effect of voluntary d
drunkenness, intensified by SOM peculiar a.
faint or morbid condition of the defendants
mind or temperament, not amounting to in
sanity or delirium until aroused TO activity Fl
by the excessive use of ardent spirits, and
he knew hat intOxication would pro- 7
duce this mental condition, and, knowing it, =
drunkand committed the act under Ell
frenzy, such temporary madness
is no excuse for the crime, although it may Fl
been aggravated by such peculiarities
Of temperament and morbid mental con- =
lition. Ii
But this evidence, like evidence of mere
drunkenness, is admissible as affecting the fl
Of intention, deti6eratioa and premed-
tation. on fll-1p sr-.
The law in its humanity makes all proper al
for the infirmities of our weak
luman nature, but it cannot and does not AT
,end to suit all the morbid conditions, tenn
and idiosyncrasies of individual citi-
ems. 1t rather seeks to control our tenden- III
les to evil, SO that they shall not e~ndanger
he peace and safety of society-it is a rule fiji
f conduct, which we are not at liberty to
isregard- in the language of an emine at
ldge, "we are in a court of law, not in a nj
shool OF science; our action must there
IRE be governed by legal adjudication, and fir
OF by the theories and speculations of the
.
CONFESSIONS. 81
The State has offered evidence of state
rents and declarations alleged to have been 50
lade by the accused, before the death of
amen Parsons, as well as the alleged con- G.
,ssions of the prisoner after she was killed. Al
his evidence Is competent as tending to
rove deliberate and premeditated malice, 81
nd as tending to rebut the claim of the de-
.nse that the prisoner at the bar was inca
acltated at the time of the commission of 81
le act to deliberate and mediate upon the s
eed. But it is my duty to admonish YOU fin
lat evidence of threats, or declarations in {
icating malice, and evidence of verbal con :
ssiOns of guilt, are to be received and act I'M
| upon with great caution, for, besides the s
of mistake from the misrepresentation fin
witnesses, the misuse of words, the fail c
re of the accused to express his own mean :
g, and the infirmity of the human memo IN
r. it is to ha s~amAmhared that thew arc 4
equently made without reflection, whilst tv.
e mind is laboring under depression, agi- G
ton or intoxication. 1t therefore becomes :
)ur duty to s%crutinize them closely, exam Wv
e well the circumstance under which S
ey were uttered, and the appearance, SIS
amer and apparent intelligence, candOr c
III CONSISTENCY OF the Witnesses VINO TESTIFY
them. But if you find, in the exercise of gul
eh care and scrutiny, that declarations or 1
reats indicating malice and a purpose to tru
ne naFe 81 uelIoeIateiy maze, or sell
We them all proper weight and influence arr
your deliberations, for whilst this kindof OF
idence is to be received with careful scru-
it is at the same time recognized as -
e of the most e~ffectual means of proof NJ
own to the criminal law. w
the value of such declarations and y
nfessions depends upon the superstition
at they are deliberately and voluntarily rea
lde, and upon the presumption that a ra- "0u
nal being will not make admissions pre- III,
to his interests and safety unless :,
PEELED to it by the promptings of truth Foi
d conscience. apo
CHARACTER, EvIDRSC OF. y
The prisoner has called witnesses for the III,
rpose of proving good character. In this q
;e it was competent for the defendant to 7
! witnesses to speak of his character as a ~
law-abiding citizen. 1t is some l
les urged that evidence of good character adm
only to be considered by the jury in gre;
ubtful cases, and that its only office is to -
olive doubts in favor of the innocence of OOo
; accused. This construction of the law Out
uld render such evidence of but little war
lity in most cases. 1t is the duty of all that
minal courts to charge the jury that the -,
o~secution must prove guilt beyond a rea- "u I
liable doubt, and hat if they have a rea- U
liable doubt of the defendants guilt they -
)uld resolve such doubt in favor of limo
ice. So that in really doubtful cases the =
endant needs no evidence of good char
as he is entitled to a verdict of ac-
ittal without. But in my judgment the -
of evidence of good character should ~
be confined to such narrow limits. 1t is -
to offer it for the purpose of rem
ring the guilt of the accused doubtful
der circumstances when it might not be
doubtful in the absence of such u
,of.
There may be cases in which the evidence
guilt is so conclusive and overwhelming
1t no evidence of good character can make
But there may be other cases
which the evidence given against a per- ,oo
without character, would leave a con- Izo
.tion in which the proof OF a high and
character might properly pro- ER
,e a reasonable doubtOf guilt. Ia
The general Office of such evidence is to
prove guilt, but it is also admissible in n