The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1896-12-03

portant question on this issue. II ii Is
true that the defendant took the life of
the deceased, and at the time the mental
and physical faculties were beyond the
control of the defendant, or If some con-
trolling. mental or physical disease was
in truth the acting power within him,
which he could not resist, and he was
impelled without intent, reason. or pur-
pose, he would not be accountable to the
law. If, on the other hand, his mind was
sufficiently sound to be capable Of rea-
soning and knowing the act he was COM
hitting to be unlawful and wrong, and
knowing the consequences Of the act, and
had the mental power to resist and re-
frain from its commission, his plea of in
sanity would not avail him as defense.
Twenty-third-It is an essential ingre-
dent of murder that the person, to be
guilty of that crime. must be one of
''sound mind and discretion" the meaning
of which is, that he must have capacity
and reason sufficient to enable him to
distinguish between right and wrong,
as to the particular act he is then doing.
Although a man may be laboring under
partial insanity, il he still understands
the nature and character of his act and
its consequence; IL he has a knowledge
that it is wrong and criminal, and mind
sufficient to apply that knowledge of his
own case, and to know that If he does
the act he will do wrong and deserve pun
ishment, such partial insanity is not suffi-
cient to exempt him from responsibility
| for his criminal act. But If the mind was
| in diseased and unsound state. to such
a degree that for the time being it over
| whelms the reason, conscience and judg-
ment, and the defendant in committing
| the crime acted from an irresistible and
uncomfortable impulse, then it would be
the act of the body, without the con-
currence of the mind. In such case there
would be wanting the necessary ingre-
| dent of every crime; the intent and pur-
| pose to commit 1t.
Twenty-fourth-It is not necessary that
the insanity of the defendant should be
established beyond a reasonable doubt;
it is sufficient if it be established by the
weight or preponderance of evidence;
that is, such and so much proof as rea-
sonably establishes in your minds the
existence of insanity in the defendant at
the time the act was committed. To as
certain the condition OF the defendants
mind at the time of the killing, you should
| look to it's condition before that time;
his conduct, acts, and all other surround
ings; ascertain, if possible, whether his
mental condition was such as to enable
J him to know he was doing wrongful
/ and unlawful act. Look to his acts, con-
duct and movements before and on the
occasion of the crime; his con-
duct, acts and movements after the
crime, and all other facts in the case, to
reach n correct conclusion as to whether
the defendant was Of sound mind or
not at the time he committed the offensc
for which he is on trial, if he did COM
init it,
Twcnty-ffth-In case the jury finds
from the evidence that the defendant
committed the act with which he is
charged, but at the time of the commits
sion of the act he was in condition of
mental insanity, as above defined, you
will say by your verdict, 1--WE, the jury,
acquit the defendant on the ground of
insanity"
Twenty has been certain
evidence admitted for your consideration
of the examination of defendant by GER
tain expert witnesses since he has been
confined in Jail and of certain acts and
conduct of defendant since his c0nfine-
ment in Jail on this charge and his con-
duct during this trial, this testimony was
only admitted for the purpose of explain
ing or throwing light upon the sanity or
insanity vi the uelenuunt At lne tine VI
the alleged commission of the ofense
for which he is on trial, II 1t does throw
any light upon such question; ana moi
for the purpose OF showing. that defen'
dant committed the offense for which ne
is on trial. and you Will only consider
such evidence for the purpose for which
it was admitted.
| Twenty seyenth-There has been Other
evidence adduced before you OF other Of
lenses committed by the defendant than
that for which he is on trial. The de.
PENDANT is on trial for the murder OF
Anna Nj. Burt and for no other offense,
and the evidence submitted to you OF
other offenses alleged to have been com.
mitted by defendant was only admitted
for the purpose of explaining or throw
ing light upon the question OF defendants
sanity or insanity at the time OF The
alleged commission Of the offense fol
which he is on trial, and you will only
consider il for such purpose.
Twenty-seventh-The question OIL
whether or not the defendant is now sane
is not an issue for your determination,
and the testimony given to show tht
condition of the defendants mind AT
present or at any time since the date OF
commission of the alleged crime for
which defendant is on trial or as to its
condition prior to said date as well as
all the evidence which has been adduced
before you, upon the issue OF the de
PENDANTS insanity, was admitted for the
purpose of enabling yon to determine
stances before you, the condition OF the
n L.. I'll 81 tI..f Gf