The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1885-07-11

| capacity to distinguish between right and
wrong; and if you believe from the evidence
| that at the time of the alleged assault the
defendant was not conscious Of doing
wrong, and that lie was in such state of
mind as exempted him from legal response
! bility, he is entitled to an acquittal.
Neither delusion nor knowledge Of rigl
or wrong, nor ability to recognize acquaint-
ances or to labor, or to transact business or
manage affairs, is, as a matter of lava test of
mental disease; but all symptoms and all
tests of mental disease are purely matters of
| fact to be determined by the jury.
Whether the defendant had a mental
| disease and whether the assault with which
the defendant stands charged was the
! product Of such disease, are questions Of fact
for the jury.
Insanity is mental disease-disease of the
mind. An act produced by mental disease
is not crime. If the defendant had q
mental disease which irresst fbly impelled
him to make the assault with which he
stands charged-if the assault was the
product of mental disease in him-he is not
guilty; he is innOcent-as innocent as if the
act had been produced by involuntary in
tOxicaJion or by anotaer person using his
hand against his utmost resistance.
If, therefore, you shall find that the de-
PENDANT had such ntal disease, and that
by reason thereof he was irresistbly i'm
PEELED to make the assault with which he
stands charged, il will be your duty to
acquit him.
If you are satisfied that the mind of the
the question will be whether the disease
existed to So high degree that for the time
being it overwhelmed the reason, conscience
and judgment, and whether the prisoner in
committing the act with which he stands
charged acted from an irresistible and uncon-
trollaLle impulse. If you shall find that he
so acted from such uncon trollable impulse,
it will be your duty to acquit him.
As the burden Of proving tue existence of
insanity rests upon the defendant, it follows
that this fact must be satisfactorily es tab
lished, and that is by preponderance of
proof. The fact of insanity is not proved by
raising doubt whe Their it exists or not.
That is, if the defense here offered only
raises a reasonable doubt in your minds as
to the existence of insanity in the accused,
when the act charged was committed, such
reasonable doubt of the existence of insanity
is not reasonable doubt of his guilt, and
would not alone justly acquittal. In
the exercise of a right which the laws accord
to him, the defendant has testified as wit
ness in his own behalf, and given you his
version of the facts connected with the
transaction out of which this prosecution
Al. l., Il,
commission of public offense is not a cir
Gums lance, which OF itself, impairs his
credibility. Until impeached by some
of the legal means which may be used for
that purpose, his evidence is entitled to as
much credit as that of any other witness.
At this point will adopt for your guild
ance the substance of an instruction given
to a jury by distinguished Judge in another
State: ''Take this for your rule. that
witness who swears positively to the exist
enee of fact, if of good character and of
sufficient intelligence, may be believed,
although twenty witnesses of equally good
character swear that they were present and
did not see the same fact In conside ing
the effect OF evidence, you are no boaUd -
decide in conformity with the aeclars 'ioI
of any number of witnesses which d not
produce conviction in your minds, against a
less number or against a presumption or
other evidence satisfying your minds. Aud
if weaker OF less satisfactory evidence is
offered, when it appears that stronger and
more satisfactory evidence within the
power of the party offering, the evidence
should be viewed with distrust. In like
manner, where witness is false in the part
of his testimony, he is to be distrusted in
others.
The law conclusiyely presumes a malicious
and guilty intent for the deliberate commits
sion of an unlawful act for the purpose Of in
juring another.
In this case the character of the defendant
for peace and quiet is involved in the issue
of not guilty. When proved the jury is
bound to take it into consideration in de-
termining the question Of guilt or inno-
cence. One object in laying the evidence Of
good character before the jury is to induce
the jury to believe from the i'm probability
that person of good character should have
conducted himself as alleged; that there may
be some mistake Misrepresentation in the
evidence on the part of the prosecution, and
in this connection it must be taken into
consideration.
Proof of good character, coming as it
does, in aid of the general presumption Of
innocence, is no more to be laid out of view
by the jury in their deliberations than is
the original presumption itself. The good
character of the defendant when proven is
itself fact in the case. 1t is a circumstance
tending in greater or less degree to estab-
lish his innocence, and cannot be put aside
by the jury in order to ascertain if the facts
and circumstances considered by themselves
do not establish his guilt beyond reasOna-
BILE doubt. That is, if the good character
of the defendant, independently Of the other
facts and circumstances in evidence, creates
reasonable doubt of his guilt, he must be
acquitted.
Take the case, gentlemen, and as sole
judges of the credibility of all the witnesses
who have testified before you, make such