Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1886-01-28


sion Is the coinage of o diseased brain
which dehes reason and ridicule and
throws into disorder all the springs OF
human action.
Examine aud compare the evidence in
this case in the light of the definitions /
have here given you OF OIL insane delu-
sion, and inquire whether the acts and
say lngs OF the defendant in evidence
before you We're of that character to in-
dicate that he was lsboring under an
insane deluslon. Did he when repri-
manded or reasoned with, abandon the
absurdity or admit Its untruthfulness, or
did he adhere to and cling to it MS q
realty despite reason and argument. You
will remember the evidence in the case
and will be able to apply these and
other tests l have given you in deter
mining whether the defendant was at
the time of the homicide laboring under
an insane deluslon.
The question for the jury to deter
mine is: What was the condition of
the prisoners mind at the time this
homicide was committed. If he was
sufficiently sane at that time to be re-
sponsible, it matters not, what might
have been his condition before or after.
| - AAShSS LOO oCOhu al1IGe5bs huo pIOpS
erly SO, as to his previous condition,
because it throws light upon
his condition at the time of the
commission of the act. Inasmuch as
these diseases of the mind are generally
of gradual growth, and of indefinite con-
tinuation, if he was insane shortly be-
fore The commission of the crime, it
would be natural to infer that he might
have been so at the time; but all the
evidence must centre around the time
when the act, itself, was done
Evidence has been introduced respect
ing the acts and pecularities of the
prisoner through o period of time before
this occurrence, and it has been claimed
IN argument, on the part of the defence,
that he was, during all that time, subject
to delusions that were calculated to dis
slpate his reason, and to throw it off its
balance. Tho only materially of this
evidence, as | have already stated, was
the probability which it might afford of
the defendants liability to such disor-
derE of the mind, and the confederation
which it might yield to other evidence
tending to show that such disorders ex-
listed at the time of the commission OF
the offence.
The jury must determine whether OF
the time OF the homicide the de-
PENDANT was laboring under any
insane delusion prompting and
impelling him to do the deed.
And it will be your province to inquire
whether this act was prompted and i'm
PEELED by such insane delusion. or by
malice. or by motives of anger or re-
yenge. And IL will be your duty in
searching for snch motive, to review the
acts of the defendant
and his connections and relations
with the deceased; were they of u
friendly or u%nfriendly character. Should
you find that the act was committed not
under an insane delnsion, bnt in anger
and with a motive of revenge, the de-
fence would fail and the crime would be
murder.
You have heard some of the expert
witnesses IN their classification Of the
various forms of insanity. Monomania
is insanity only on a particular subject
or a few subjects and with a single de-
lusion Of the mind. 1t exists when the
mind, IN other respects retains It's intel
~lectual powers, but has imbibed sone
single notion contrary to common sense
or experience and which il dependent
on errors of sensation. Monomania ex-
cuses only when it deprives the party of
his reason in regard to the act charged
and to which it must Immediately re-
late, and the act muet be committed ID
connection With the insane delusion.
The delusion must be mental, not moral.
And the act must be done in good faith
under the delusion, without malice. And
not from motives of revenge for supposed
injuries, and the delusion must be of
such character as to incapacitate him
from knowing it's wrongfulness; other
wise the monomaniac Will be RESPONSE
BILE.
In summing up what have said to
you upon the doctrine of insanity, /
would add, if you find from the whole
evidence that at the time OF the commits
sion of the homicide, the prisoner was
laboring under such q defect of his rea-
SOD that he was incapable of understand.
ing what he was doing, or of knowing
that it was o wrong thing to do, Their he
was not in q responsible condition Of
mind, and should be acquitted. But if,
on the other hand, you find that, al,
though not possessing all his faculties
of mind, he had sufficient control of his
reason to distinguish right from wrong
in reference to this matter, and that he
knew 1t was wrong to commit the act,
then he was in O responsible condition
of mind, and the defence of insanity
fails.
Upon the question of intoxication to
which my attention is called by counsel
one statute provides that "Homicide
committed with q design to effect death
is not the less murder because the per-
petrator was in a state of anger or vol
untary ~intoxication at the time" and
again, mo act committed &C." read Sec
ton IL.
In this case the defendant is charged
with the crime of murder in which in
tent or premeditated design is an essen
tial ingredient as distinguishing murder
from manslaughter. And you will be
permitted to take into consideration the
: question of fact as to whether the de-
r PENDANT at the time of the commission
of the act charged was intoxicated in de-
termining the degree or grade OF the
offense whether it be murder or man
slaughter in the first or second degree.
). 1t becomes proper for me to instruct
you IN this case upon the question of the
burden Of proof. AS / have already
r stated, an irresponsible insane Lsrson
!, cannot commit murder, il he is laboring
under diseases of the mental faculties to
such an extent that he does not know
what he is doing, or does not know that
: it is wrong; then he is wanting in that
: sound memory and discretion that is q
s part of the definition of murder. And
t in the next place, every defendant is
I presumed to be innocent until the accu.
3 sation against him is established by
: proof. Or in other words. he is presumed