Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-05-13

matter, and he said "Oh, nothing much.
Pm all right" He avoided talking about
Lansing, and referred to the other man all
the time.
Afternoon Session.
DR.. W. R. Cluness sworn for prosecution
Am q practicing physician. Have had but
little experience with the insane. Have
occasionally examined parties for the asy.
lum. Have practicsd twenty-five years.
Have given the subject of the mind study.
Question-Take a foreigner who gets into
trouble Sunday, goes to the police Monday
for a warrant. He don't get if. Next day
he meets the man he wished arrested. He
shoots at him and runs. Is pursued by a
crowd. A citizen pursues. Defendant draws
his pistol. The citizen throws up his hands
and cries, Don't shoot" But he does shoot
him. He then faces the crowd and levels his
pistol toward them. He then runs, and
throws away his pistol. He is arrested and
denies the shooting, and asks if he did it
why no pistol was found on him. He is ex-
cited falls in his cell in brief fit, but re-
covers and gives personal history. What
| would you say was his state of mind at the
time of the last shooting?
Objected to as not in rebuttal etc.
The Court overruled the objection.
| Witness-In such case | can see no evil
dence of insanity whatever. l should think
the party responsible at the time he fred the
| shot.
Cross examination-By insanity mean
| state of unseund mind. Anger and fear may
be causes of that craze. Temperament makes
a difference as to liability to insanity. Would
class defendant as of the bilious tempera.
ment One of that temperament is more
liable to the emotions of anger and fear:
Question-Take q case like this: Eight
days before the homicide defendant asks for
a warrant for man he had difficulty with
He is refused week passes ; he is beaten
| by man cruelty ; he goes for a warrant and
is refused he is told to come the next day
he does so, and is refused by the City Attor-
ney and put out of the office. In a few
hours he meets the man and shoots at him
he flies; mob excitedly pursues a man
tries to intercept him. and he turns and
| shoots him; he is arrested, and is in violent
state and excited greatly that night he talks
| in ra milling way and falls in fit!
| Answer-Such a man must have been
| greatly excited lie was doubtless conscious
| that he had violated the law, and was fleeing,
and feared justice would overtake him, and
| to that extent fear actuated him. don't
| believe that under such emotions as described
| g man would be SO insane as not to know
| what he was doing.
DR.. C. C. TYRRELI,
Sworn. Been physician twenty-five years.
Have had experience with the insane. Same
| hypothetical question put as was asked DIR.
| Cluness l think that no evidence of in
| sanity in one SO accused.
Cross. examinstion-I think he knew what
he was doing. Oue might be in q condition
of passion in which he would do that which
in a cool moment he would not do. Don't
| think fear would increase that state or emo
ton. think the man intended to escape at
any cost. His acts showed he had made up
his mind to escape and to do all he could to
effect it.
Redirect question-Take uncomfortable i'm
pulse. Do you know of case where such
party attempted to conceal the crime or dis.
pose of the weapon!
Answer-We know of no such cases.
DIR. F. W. HATCH
Sworn. Am physician of IS or 40 years
practice have had some experience with in
sanity heard the questions to DR.. Tyrrell
don't think in such case the man insane.
Cross-examination-H might have been
Influenced by fear. 1t depends on reflection
on the results of his act to determine if he
knew what he was doing. As to time for re-
Election, it is almost impossible to measure it.
There is q difference in this respect as to tenn.
peraments. Defendant I'd hardly take to be
of the nervous temperament.
The People here rested the case.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY BUCKLEY
Opened the arg ument. The people asked the
jury to render verdict of murder in the first
degree against the defendant. He congratu-
lated the people on the speedy trial. Only
| thirty days ago the homicide was committed.
But though speedy, the defendants trial had
been fair. fall and impartial. He compli.
mented Mr.. Br1ner for his gentlemanly con-
duct of the defendants case. A grave pub
lie error prevails that in this case there is the
lack of premeditntion. The law is that
if the circumstances show in the defendant
an abandoned and malignant heart it is muir.
der in the first degree. There must be malice
aforethought. It need not be spite and malev-
olence against deceased. but any evil feeling.
Reading from decisions. Malice in its legal
sense does not mean hatred and ill.will, but
the intent to do an unlawful act intentionally
without lawful excuse or extenustion. Where
one kills, in an unlawful act, the law implies
malice and the burden is on the defendant to
show that there was no infant to kill. There
need be no appreciable space of time between
| the intent to kill and the act of killing. So
says the Supreme Court ia number CT cases.
(Reading some. The intent and premedita-
tion to kill and the act of killing may be as
rapid as thought can follow thought. Where
there is nothing in the circumstances to ex-
cuse or justify the killing, the law presumes
malice. Express malice is where one has
deliberate purpose to kill, etc.; where homi
eide is committed without provocstion. or
any considerable provocAtion, malice is i'm
Piled Take the case where one shoots into
crowd and kills some one man, it is murder
in the first degree, and it is not needed
| to show the killer had malice against the
deceased Mr.. Buckley then applied the
law thus stated to the facts in this case, and
held that Raten was clearly guilty of muir
der in the first degree, and nothing less.
Raten had the mind to form the plan to re-
sist capture and to kill to carry it out. He
is man of ferocious disposition, and one
stincts are brought into play. He knew just
what he was doing. He got into fight, was
| whipped, went to q druggist for shade for
| his bruised eyes, and went then to the police
for warrant. That shows he knew what he
was about. He was refused warrant, and
properly, for he was not in fit condition to
take an oath. He was told to come next day.
He did, and this shows he knew exactly what
he was about Then a warrant was again
refused, for the law officer found he
had no cause, but was the aggressor.
Angered by this result he deliber.
| ately searched out Erickson and shot
at him. Erickson ran away, and defendant,
| with his intent to kill fully awakened, pur-
sued him. He knew what he was about.
But Erickson escaped, and then defendant
fed for his own safety. Waddle tried to in
tercept him, and defendant pointed his pistol
at him, and Waddls sensibly stepped aside.
Then Leslie pursued him, and he drew on
Leslie, and he too retreated. All this shows
he intended to kill if need be to avoid capture.
Then crowd came on, and defendant ran
into an alley. natural act in the scheme of
escape. The crowd naturally Grid out stop
him ~ Just then Lansing stepped out, and
defendant. in his scheme OF escape. shot him.
and that though Lansing was in the act of
| turning away from the pursuit and crying
out for mercy, and appealing to him not to
shoot. Lansing came out unarmed and held
up his hands to defendant to show it. But
after shooting Lansing defendant faced the
crowd and held his pistol aloft, as if to say,
"Come on if you dare" The crowd rstreated
and the defendant went on Ia his flight, and
| in it threw away his weapon. Did not such
| an act point to the defendants knowledge OF