Holmes County Republican. [volume] (Millersburg, Holmes Co., O. [Ohio]) 1870-1895, 1871-08-03

the proof must overthrow the legal pre-
sumption of sanity. You must be sat-
isfied he was not sane, in one of the
senses indicated. The defense of insan
ity isas complete when establi shed as
it is humane.
The only difficulty lies in the ascer-
tainment of truth, in the ascertainment
of the point where accountability ends
and insanity begins. Until that point
is reached, criminal responsibility exists
as fully and entirely as though no such
rdefense We're interposed. 1t is also to
be distinguished from great wickedness
of disposition and depravity of heart.
If under the evidence and the light OF
the law as here given.you are satisfied
that the defendant was insane when he
killed the deceased, YOU will find him
not guilty.
If you are not so satisfied you will
determine from the evidence of what
offense if any the accused is guilty. If,
from all the evidence of this case, you
come to the conc lusion that the defend
ant was insane at the time he commit
ted the homicide with which he stands
charged, you need not trouble yourselves
with the question of classification.
mean by the above remark to suggest
simply, that your inquiries may be di-
rected to the question of sanity or in
sanity at the time the act was done with
out special reference to whether such
insanity ought to be denominated gen.
eral or partial, functional or organical
The great question is this, was the state
of mind such at the time, that he had
nj nnnnnrl, TO
able him to distinguish between right
and wrong respecting the particular act
he was then doing.
Upon this point our own Supreme
Court has used the follow ing language
18TH Ohio State Reports, 615-'The
accused in Il criminal case is not entitled
to an acquittal on the ground of insani-
ty, if at the time of the alleged offense
he had capacity and reason sufficient
left to enable him to distinguish be-
tween right and wrong and understood
the nature of his act and his relations
to the party injured
As to the burden of the proof, and
upon whom 1t rests in q case where in
sanity is interposed as defense have
this to say, that whatever has been de-
cided in other states of the Union, / feel
bound by the decision of our Supreme
Court. 1a
That Court has said: -
.'As the law presumes every person
who has reached the age of discretion,
to be of sufficient capacity to be respon-
sible for crime, the burden of establish
ing the insanity of the accused affirma-
lively to the satisfaction of the iury in
the trial of criminal case rests upon
the defense.'' 8at
1t is sufficient if the Jury be reason
ably satisfied by the weight or prepon-
derance of the evidence that the accus-
ed was insane at the time of the commits
sion of the act.
Witnesses for and against the defend
ant have in your presence gwen their
opinions based upon an actual knowl-
edge of the prisoners characteristics, or
upon hypothetical eases,as to his sanity
or insanity. a4' it
In your retirement, then, gentlemen,
you will inquire, did the prisoner pur-
poscly, and of deliberate and premedi-
tated malice, take the life of Eiizaberh
Garoett? s - :.
If YOU answer this interrooatorv af-
firmatiyely. Won should Inv yonr verdict