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

Aud again u statute provides, (Sec.
Ola, code of criminal procednre,) "An
act done by a person in a state of insan-
lty cannot be punished as a public of
fence"
The plea of not guilty ~interposed by
the defendant puts in Issue the fact OF
INSANITY here introduced as a defence,
and permits the defendant to prove, if
he Is able SO to do, that he comes
within the class of persons named in the
statute just read to you, who are incap-
able of committing crime.
1t is true, as has been remarked by
counsel, that the defence of insan.
lty has been 81 abused as to be brought
into great discredit. 1t may, az has
been stated, have been the last resort
in cases of unquestionabIe guilt. 1t may
havs been an excuse for juries
to bring in verdicts of acquittel
where there was public sympathy for the
accused, and especially, where there was
great provocation for the homicide, ac-
cording to public sentiment, but not ac-
cording to the strict rules of law 1t
may be that the defense of insanity has
been, or is viewed with disfavor, and
that public sentiment is hostile to it;
but with this, you have nothing to do.
In a trial of this Importance, l hope you
may be able to SO carefully sift and
weigh the testimony adduced before
you, as to bring ina verdict thereon,
tina may not be open to any Just and
proper criticism. 1t is sufficient to say
that insanity is Recognized by law as a
proper defense, andsas such. it is your
duty to give it it's proper and full
weight.
| will be observed that in certain cases
there is no difficulty in determining the
incapacity of the defendant to c-mmit
crime, where there is total insanity, or
such "a ravinR mania, or absolute imbe~
cility that the exercise of reason is want
ing; or where there is no recognition of
persons or things or their relations. But
there is u subtle border line between
sanity and insanity, and there is often
great difficulty in determining on which
side OF this line a party is to be placed.
There are cases in which q mans mental
faculties, generally, seem to be IN full
vigor, but where on a single subject he
seems to be entirely d%eranged. A man
may be possessed, perhaps, by the belief
of something absurd, which he cannot be
reasoned out of. This is called an insane
delusion. Or he may have some morbid
propensity, seemingly in harsh discord
With the rest of his intellectual and
moral nature. This class of cases, for
want of a better term, is sometimes call
ed partial insanity. Sometimes it's exis-
tance, and sometimes it's limits are
doubtful and undefinable. In those
cases it Is difficult to determine whether
a party has passed the line of moral or
legal accountability for his actions. The
Jury must bear in mind, in the outset,
that a man does not become irresponsi-
BILE by the mere fact of bis being partial
ly insane. He nav be able to exercise
as much control over himself as when III
health; he may commit offences with
which his lnfirmity OF partial ineanlty
has nothing to do. He may be entirely
sane as to the crime he has committed,
and may understand Its nature, and be
governed by the same motives in rela-
tion to it, as other people; while on
other subjects having no relation what
ever to the crime, he may be'the victim
of q deldsion. Whenever this partial in
sanity is relied upon as a defence. it must
appear that the crime charged is a
product of that deluslop, or that morbid
condition connected with it; as effect liz
connected with cause, and that II was
not the result of a n reasoning, which
the party may be capable of, notwith.
standing his limited and circumscribed
disorder.
/ do not intend to review or comment
upon the evidence IN this case. I do not
feel it my duty to do SO. 1t has been
summed up, in parts. by the speeches of
she counsel on either side, and it will be
impossible for me to take up the evi.
dence and attempt to go through it in
detail, without impressiDg upon you,
by my arrangement of it, or by emphasis
of parts in repeating it, some opinion,
or conviction upon Its merits, which /
might have formed | shall only refer
to tbs testimony as pertinent to the
questions of malice or insanity. or legal
questions, and leave the details of it to
your memory. The legal necessity for a
man.slayer to have been in a state of
sanity when he slew, before he can be.
held accountable to human law, is deep
ly rooted in u jurisprudence. AS far
back as the Roman law the maxim was:
"A mad mans madness is his only pun
ishment."
In the early history of the common
law, one of the essential to the defni-
ton of murder, was sound memory
and discretion. Murder, according to
the common law, is where, "a person of
sound memory and discretion, unIaw-
fully kills any responsible creatures
being in the peace of the king, with
malice prepense or afore thought, either
expressed or implied. The converse
| phrase OF our statute which I have read
to you, Estate of sanity" is controvert-
able with the words-sound memory
and discretion, of the common law.
Very early in our American decisions it
was said: can insane person il
considered in law, incapable of
committing a crime, but it is not
every degree Of insanity which abridges
| the responsibility attached to the com
mission of crime. In that species Of in
sanity where the prisoner has lucid
intervals, if during these intervals he is
c-pable of distinguishing good from evil,
and perpetrates an o~ffense, he is respon
sible; and the principal subject OF in
quiry is, whether the prisoner, at the
time he committed the offence, bad snf
6ciept capacity to discern good
from evil: and should the
Jury believe that he had such
capacity it will be their duty to find
him guilty.
You have listened to the testimony Of
experts in this case. The testimony o.
such witnesses, have often, by courts
and text writers, been So verely criticised
1t is not my province or purpose, a,
his time. to cr1ticise or reflect upon
this class of testimony. They are to be
considered by you. rather as mirrors
than Witnesses, which reflect upon your
opinions of the testimony produced be