The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1904-07-10


crime; but such witness must first be
shown to be competent or qualified to
give an opinion as to the sanity or i'm
sanity on the party inquired about.
y. same; same; competency Of wit
ness.-The question as to the compe-
tency of witness, whether expert or
non-expert, to give an opinion as to
the sanity or insanity Of defendant
on trial for crime is a question for the
determination Of the court and not for
the jury; and the courts decision a. to
this question will not be revised. unless
it clearly appears to have been erron-
eous.
10. Insanity; competency OF expert
and non-expert witnesses to give an
opinion.-An expert witness may give
| an opinion as to the sanity or insanity
of an individual based solely upon the
hypothetical question. without any per-
sonal knowledge or acquaintance with
the individual inquired about; but
non-expert witness can. not give an
opinion as to the sanity or insanity Of
an individual inquired about. based
solely or in part upon an abstract ny
pothetical question. and his opinion
must be based upon his own personal
knowledge, observation, acquaintance,
experience, etc., with the individual In
quired about.
H. Same; competency Of non-expcrt
witness.--While a non-expert witness
may give his opinion as to the sanity
of a person inquired about, by frst
merely generally denying the existence
of any facts showing an abnormal or
unnatural state of mind, yet, in order
for non-expert to give an opinion as
to the insanity of such person. he must
first state specifically the facts claim
ed to show or indicate an abnormal con-
dition of mind.
~. hypothetical question to expert
witnesses.-Where there Is no dispute
as to the facts upon the question OF In
sanity, hypothetical question ex-
pounded to an expert witness should
embrace substantially all the facts OF
the particular case; but II the evidence
is in conflict as to the facts tending to
show insanity. the hypothetical ques-
ton may, and should. properly embrace
only the facts tending to support the
particular theory of the party asking
the question, and the opposing party
NAV PROFOUND questions to the witness
embracing facts which tend to support
HIS theory.
IS. Same; competency of hypothetf-
cal ouestion.-In the examination OF an
expert witness. upon the question OF
the insanity vel-non of the person IN
ouired about, a hypothetical question
propounded to such expert witness
should not contain matter as to which
no evidence has been introduced.
"a Same; cross examination.-Ex-
merit witnesses may be cross examined
and their opinions obtained. based upon
facts assumed by the party examining
them to have been proven upon
hypothetical case; and they may also
be cross-examined on purely imaginary
and abstract questions.
Is. Opinion of non-expert witnesses
weight and sufficiency.-The opinions
of expert witnesses as to insanity. are
not conclusive upon a jury; and the
weight and suff1ciency of such evil
dence to prove insanity, is question
To he determined solely by the jury.
1e. Insanity; cannot be proved by
Notwithstanding cannot be proved
by the reputation of the person In
ouired about in the community, or his
notoriety or upon hearsay evidence.
II. Trial and it's Incidents; action
of court as to improper question.-It
ia not error for the court to refuse to
lecture an attorney for asking wit
ness an improper question or in declin-
ing to instruct the jury as to the i'm
propriety of asking such improper
question; the court, having sustained
the objection to such question. per-
formed his full duty.
- Evidence as to insanity; opinion
of witness as to how person talked
In the trial of criminal case, where
one of the issues involved is the in
sanity vel non of the defendant. II is
competent for a non-eXpert witness
who had been with the defendant and
talked with him, to testify that the
defendant talked nationally or that
the defendant seemed to be all right"
TO- Evidence as to insanity: cross
examination of witness.-Where the
defendant in a criminal case interposes
the plea of not guilty by reason of in
sanity, a witness for the State who tes-
tifies that he had frequently been win
the defendant and had occasion to
carefully notice him. and that he was.
in his opinion. sane. 1t Is error for
the court to refuse to allow the de-
PENDANT to ask such witness. on cross
examination, If he did not, on that day
or the day previous. state to the de-
that the defendant was of unsound
mind; and this is true, although the
question asked on cross examination
would show a violation of the rule by
the defendants brother as a witness.
20. Evidence; voluntary confession.
Statements made by a defendant in
a criminal case concerning the COM
mission of the offenses charged. which
are shown to have been voluntarily
made, are admissible as declarations
or confessions against the defendant.
81. Evidence as to insanity; opinion
of witness as to effect of delirium tre-
a trial under an Indictment