Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1899-11-16

. shooting was over in some other direc.
! uon, running over that way; that he left
the street, ran down through q ravine.
I Threw off his overcoat went down the
track toward Richmond, left the track,
! went over through a field, woods or past
| ure, and went to the house of friend
| ana then to his own house. The State ar.
| CUES that he was fully conscious of the
| situation, of what he had done, the nature
| OF 1t, and knew the consequences of 1t:
| that he knew the difference between
| right and wrong and knew he was liable
| to be punished for it,
Then the State calls your attention to
the fact that when he was being brought
through Gardiner he was apprehensive Of
the crowd at Gardiner and again at Au-
gusta, making the remark that ne was
afraid Of the crowd, was afraid the peo-
pie would take the law into their own
hands. Then the memorandum that the
State relies on shows. the State claims,
desperation on his part; that he had be-
come desperate, that his mind was made
up; that he had fortified himself with
liquor and that this was the outgrowth
of depravity rather than of mental dis
ease Whether or not that is valid ar
gument is for you.
The State also says that the change in
the respondent since indicates remorse.
The State further says he has grown
older and whittier since this affair, indi-
eating, as the State says, that he has L
conscience left, and that it was the pangs
of that conscience preying upon him that
has caused this great change; that if he
had been insane all the time since. there
would have been no change in his appear
ance. Then as to the experts, the State
says they could not have heard al the
testimony; that they may have renlem-
bered some parts of it and not other
parts, and that the testimony may MT
all have been true that they listened to.
At any rate, the Safe argues that they
were simply opinions, and that, after all,
the decision is with you as to what the
fact is.
Therefore, the States counsel claims
that, while there is perhaps some ev-
idence Of mental disease, vet, taking all
the evidence together, the greater weight,
the State claims, is not in favor Of tho
proposition that he was insane at that
time in legal sense. that is that it haz
not been proved that at the time of do
ing the act he afflicted with menta,
disease of such character or extent that
he had not then the mental capacity sur
fcent to distinguish between right and
wrong to the particular act he was
doing-or. in other words, that he had not
knowledge. consciousness or conscience
enough to know that the act he was doing
was wrong, and one for which he would
be liable to punishment-or, in still other
words, that he was so afflicted with men,
tai disease that he did not know the ma
ture of the act he was doing, or. if he
did. he did not know that the act was
unlawful and was wrong. The State
claims that, notwithstanding all that ap-
pears and Notwithstanding the evidence,
he after all did have sufficient mental
capacity to understand and remember the
situation. the relation in which he stood
to others and others to him, to under
stand and remember the nature AMI
quality of the act he was doing,-that it
was unlawful and wrong. The State
claims that the evidence tends to show
that his mind was so full of other mat
tiers, 50 full of his own wrongs, real or
fancied, that 1t not applied to the
consideration of the nature and quality
of the act, to its character and probable
results.
Something has been said. gentlemen, on
both sides about the consequences of your
verdict one way the other. You have
nothing to do with that at ALL Whether
or not this man is now insane, and
whether or not he requires treatment for
insanity. is a question entirely for the
court. not for you. You are concerned
simply with his condition on the 18th day
of February last, on that evening when
he shot that girl. 1t has been suggested
to you that there will be certain unhap-
piness result if the verdict be one way;
certain dsappointments and feelings of
regret If it be the other way. That has
not the least to do with your decision.
1t does not matter whether this man has
friends not, whether he is rich or poor
whether he is a peer or is outcast or
pauper. The simple question is whether
or not at the time of the killing of this
girl he was insane in the legal sense.
Lay everything else one side. Let respon-
sibilties and consequences fall where
they must. and keep yourselves to your
duty without fear or favor.
Now, gentlemen, does all the evidence
lead you to believe that at the time Of
the shooting, this respondent was affict.
ed by mental disease and that the disease
was of such character or extent that
it deprived him of that mental capacity
which l have stated to be necessary and
sufficient for criminal responsibility? If
that is the effect or the evidence upon
your minds. your verdict should be mot
guilty by reason of insanity" If the evi.
dence does not have that effect, then the
presumption of the legal sanity remains.
and the verdict should be guilty of muir.
der in the first degree"
Gentlemen, do not feel that it really Is
much consequence which
verdict is. If it was immateral, we
should not have gone to this enormous
expense to this county of Kennebec and
kept you here for these days and myself
here for these days on tins trial. II is
of the utmost Consequence that you find
out the real truth, and, having so found.
that you declare it. 1t is almost an awful
responsibility. l hope you are impressed
by it. and that you will approach it de-
liberately and almost prayerfully; that
you have the courage either one way Or
the other, the ability, the resolution. to
find out the living truth whoever it hurts
wherever It rails. Give us Gods truth in
this matter