The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-05-31
rlE RRlEF OF HON. MANN TRICE

IONS oil the experts 10 the facts found or
believed to be established. Therefore every |
iact, theory or Inference deducihle from tho |
circumstances OF the case, tending to shed |
tght upon the question Of sanity. was |
placed before the expert Witnesses ana they /
expressed their opinion ON the different thy- |
cries presented. this enabled the Jury to de- |
'ermihe the disputed facts and apply the |
opinion OF the experts to tho main fact in |
Issue, to-wit,, the sanity OF the defendant |
ut the time of the murder. This Ia made
clear by the trial courts explanation 10 tho |
bill OF exceptions as follows:
This bin is allowed with this uuallii- |
cation and explanations The evidence in |
the case was very yolumMous and in part |
contradictory. The fact ot the killing IT.
| self relied on by the defense rs one OF the
strongest, If not only ground showing IN
sanity. was one of the disputed facts ia the
case, provable only by circumstances, and
1t M1s impossible 10 form u hypothetical
case. assuming all the evidence in the case
| 10 be true. because there Was no direct evil
dence OF the killing. and said evidence was
contradictory In part. ana the court stated
TO counsel that the State would be allowed
TO state a Hypothetical case based upon the
assumption that hex testimony was true.
and embracing all the evidence Tor the
State. and to ask the opinion OF the Wit
ness based upon such hypothesis, and that
| the defendant would be allowed to state a
| hypothetical case based upon the assump-
| tion that his testimony was ali true, and
| on all reasonable inferencts to be drawn
| from such testimony, ana 10 express his
opin!on based upon such hyyotheticnl case.
| he State embraced all its testimony in
| its hypothetical question. and upon the as
y, sumed truth OF said question, the witness
| stated hts opinion that defendant Was sane.
| The defendant then nut It's Hypothetical
case to witness. based on the nsstnption
that all his testimony was true and based
on the assumption that all reasonable in
ferences to be- drawn from his testimony
was true, including the fact that defendant.
without reason, motive or cause Killed his
wife and children. upon which question
witness answered that mon snch hypo,hesis
he would say the dcfendant was Insane. N
the evidence was embraced aud included in
the States Hypothetical question. and de-
Pendants Hypothetical question combined
This clearly shows that the opinion OF
the several experts We're naSed up29 a'l
the facts proVei ana on an teaSou3oio IN
ferenccS 10 he drawn from the testimony,
including the assumed fact on the part OF
appellant that he killed his Vile ana eii
drcn without reason. motive or cause rms
last assumption or rack WIS uispaleu ny Wy
State ON the Trial ami Is here 0lspu,eu IL
WIS therefore proper ioT VHe So ~ I'M IN
THIS disputed TACT as Wen as at o.i,l u,s,
puted facts from the Hypothetical question:
nlopouhdea 10 inc tApeIe M.oN'sS' "is 'U,e
is wen eS'aoHshou IN .pss $50 - -
ruiIS" pS INV go - ,|.rS ,So t..,t,-
ony ,as n, his case, eaeh side to the Issue
bo. a right to nm opinion from the witness
man any hvnotbosis reasonably consistent
Win tho evidence. and # mcagery pre-
sen1ss in tbc examination ON one eide. it
nav Ne fully presented on the other. The
,.5 examjnntlon being within the con
Mh9'e mai 1a,,rt whose duty il Is to
uo' Ma, y, WI # is fairly and reasonably con
s dmc,s sI''' j. 10 '"'''' '
Isacb vs.. state, % App. 279; Loyolody
VS.. state Ii App, 545, Buswell on insan-
> itp, section 26S; Rogers on ExrNrt Test
mony page No. " arm aa'',{",, a-s
AZ sSi'' '-'' '''''4 "
"'f rno ,r,e IS succinctly stated by MIR.
,onn nv a ,"' follows: 1T Is sufficient If the
Jones Jones Us AMY etatos such facts as the
gn ,oa, ~ Tho examiner tends to establish
o pnd fairly presents his claim or theory.