The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-05-31

until the contrary DO proved 10 their sat =
lsfaction. To establish defense on tho
ground OF Insanity, II must he clearly
proved that at the time Of committing tho
act the accused was laborlng un Ter such .
defect OF reason from disease OF the mind
as not TO know the nature and quality OF
The oct he was doing. or. II he dill KIN. W I,
II, that he did not know he was cong
what was wrong, II the accused WAS etN-
scious that the act was one that he omsns
moi 60 do and II that act was at the same
time contrary TO the law OF tho lanl, hs 10
punishable" tSee Russell on Crimes. p.
10. Reg. VS.. McNaughton, 10 q, & F.,
eeo.l
Hi, lest there be controversy as 10 tho
| rule at common law. and az to whNthcr Il
| prencrihes lust where the burden Of proof
laws and whore II should SHIFT. tho enact-
mont Of article 50 OF the Penal Code, It
| occurs TO me. cuts on discussion en- that
| ltnc. and fixes the rule beyond the prrad-
venture of q doubt This article reals os
follows: ION tho trial OF any criminal re-
/ ton. when the facts have beSn p'ovid
which consti,utc the offonae. I, devclNcs
| upon the accused TO establish the tacts or
| circumstances on which he relies 10 tNcucc
or justify tho prohibited act or OMISSION"
| This declaration of the legislative VIII 10
| 40 plsin ana cynlcit that there seems It DO
no room for construction. How cr, the
| courts. In constituting this article, have uni
|
| relies uron any substantiatlvc. district. In
depcndcnt matter ns defense. aucn ns In
sanity. homage liccnae to do the VT, or
the like. then u dev0lyes upon him to
establish such defense by a preponifstnce
Of Nv evidence, and II would not he error
to instruct In such ease that the burden
OF proving such defense deyolves upon tho
accused"
See Jones w. State. IA App, I; Thomas
VS., state "a App. so6i Donaldson W, state.
| IL App 81, Lane vs. state III App. Ia,
Stuith Va state, rs APP. 60; Smith VS.
State, 10 App, a6; I.eachc va, State 20
APP 27a. Lcache va, state, 2S App aNi,
| I4cachc vs.. state. 80 Texas Grim, Rep, h26.
AS said In Kings case, and by Judge
Davidson IN Smiths case 81 App, rs. The
law proRumes cvory man TO No sane, and
that presumption alone VIII OF itself eus.
tain the hurbon OF proof which Us deyoved
upon the State IN every criminal case. so
lar aR sanity Ia involved, uutil u Ia re-
huttcd and overcome by satisfactory evil
dence 20 the contrary. Naturally, and IN
fact. the burden to robut this presumption
rests with and la upon the defendant and
ho should be able to show his ineanity
clearly. lnd to that extent that the minds
and consciencvs Of the jury can say. that
on account OF his insanity he wns guiltltss
of entertaining tho criminal intent ossen-
ttal TO responsibility for the crime charg-
cd" To the Same effect is Smith Vs. state.
- APP ah Gehcl VS., State. aS App, l5l;
SmiNh VS., State, % Appn. Sl1
In tho case OF torcn VI, state, ~ Tex.
Grim, Rep 6Si, II appears that Hon Tom
Brown. lthun district judge but now on tho
euprcme bonoh,. charged tho jury. "lt you
have found that the evidence O. this ease
establishes beyond reasonable doubt that
tho defendant Killed said deceased as
charged, under circumstance which would
make him guilty OF murder IN the first or
second degree, then, IN order for the de-
PENDANT to bo exempted from punishment
for the crime Ia committed II any, upon
the ground oi his Insanity, II doNulNes upoh
him (detcndnnO to establish by prepon-
derant-,, of the evidence, thui at tho time
tho crime was committed ho was insane
TO that degree that would exempt him
from punishment Judge Hurt III deciding
this raso saya. We have with the greatest
scrutiny read the charge of the court on
tho subject OF insanity, read u IN tho
J Ian, Of the objections mnde to It, but we
must say that the objections urged ore not
We'll taken whom tested by the opinions OF
! this court. The writer has many objections
which could be urged upon the principle
| contained therein, but my views on this
subject have not prevailed, and I will urge
+ them no longer. though mistaken in the
| lbelIpf Of their Hounaness" lie further
r iaAys "The evidence ~ conflicting with re-
: gard 10 The oae issue In the cuse. towit';
y insanity. The jury decided this Issue
l against the appellant aud we cannot say
20 that tho verdict Ia not sustained by tho
Q evidence Tho burden was on the defend
Q aut to prove insanity by tho preponderanoe
= OF the evidence; his trters say thnt ne
d failed To do this. and We cannot say they
were wrong -
o I'm Williams w. state IS. w. Rep, p--);
I Whcaicy vs. state s. w. Hep y; and
IIurot vr State IS. w. Rep p. y Judge
llendorson, delivering tho opinion OF this
court. adhered to and reaillrmod the doc
! urine announced in King and Leach cnseF,
MI hr al fttT
. In this State judge Brooks Ia charging
J the jury IN this case but followed In tho
wake of these authorities, ana az before
stated Whatever might be ~" Individual
. opinion of the mnmbor3 OF lhls court ana
! as to whit the rule ehould DO, tho plain
; uumistnkabln and positive epacimcntH or
the Penal code above quoted should profib-
> II q change Of the rule. 10 as TO conform 10
i. the contentious so ably urged by tho APP
, pellauta counsel In this case
= ~ said by Judge White In Nobb's case.
, IVA do not deem II necessary to unrasei
> or nitompt TO nusWor the misty macs ana
y metaphysical dsquisitlons INDUCED In by
opposing theorists about sanity being es-
. suutRl to criminal intent, ana criminal
:, lntont being essential 20 punishable crime,
y nor their equally abstruso and Obscure
" yinwe az TO which side has the buijen OF
| proof. when the sanity OF defendant ac-
a, uuires a status In the case" % Appeals.
q pages 5i2-blS)
This Is settled by the common law, which
n hns Justly been characterized as the per-
fortion Of human reason. IT, has been re-
=, enacted by solomn statutory enaetinenia
MS mahifosiod by articles 40 and ~, OF me
y Penal Code, md article T22 OF the Gods
70 nj Criminal Procedure. II appcllants
Is theory bu correct. our entire system Ia
l. wrong and should be revised for under the
law M II exists, this man could not 10
. confined as a lunaiic unom ~ was clearly
of proved that hn was ipranc. ne couiu nor
To avoid a contract or ordinary obligation on
~ the ground of insanity nnlcse he clearly
J. established his insanity, and the burden
4 Of proof under all the law TO when J
W have had access would deYolyc upon him.
Nc How then can II be said that he can AVOID
The penalties OF the law for the crime o.
Dc murder gu a less degree OF proof than he
e could avoid a contract TO pay money or TO
le perforin an Obligation II seems TO ms
" absurd TO say that the burden OF proc,