The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1905-06-02
NAONE CASE
GOES TO JURY
ATTORNEY GENERAL ANDREWS
MENT IN DE BOLTS COURT.

At noon today the jury was given
the NaOne murder case, after a brilliant
closing argument by. Attorney General
Andrews. The attorney general was
severe in his criticisms of the medical
experts whose action he characterized
as selling themselves for retainers'
and he painted a striking picture OF
Naone's actions up to the time when
he seized his wife by her dress and
shot her to death. Andrews contenden
that it was a premeditated and cow
ardly murder of an innocent young wo-
man and had no other motive than
that she was in the way of Naone's
growing passion for another woman.
Immediately at the close of his adj
dress, during which Dunno interrupt
ed several times with protests, Judge
De Bolt began reading his charge to
the jury.
Judge De Bolts instructions We're
very lengthy and dealt with the insan-
ity defense very fully Among the
principal charges regarding insanity as
a defense were the following:
Il further instruct you gentlemen of
the jury that the law presumes every
person that has reached the age of dis
erection to be of sound mind, and this
presumption continues until the con-
! trary appears. When the de-
tense is insanity the person accused
cannot be convicted either of murder
! or manslaughter if upon the evidence,
| by whomsoeVer adduced, there is a
! reasonable doubt whether he WAS in
law mentally capable of committing
either the particular crime charged or
any other crime included therein Of
murder and that of manslaughter ne
cessarily involve the possession by the
accused of such mental capacity as will
render him criminally responsible for
his acts; and that the burden of estab-
! fishing such mental capacity rests up
on those who affirm that the accused
has committed the alleged crime for
which he is indicted.
And 1 further charge you that if up
on this question of the mental capacity
of the accused, you entertain any real
sonable doubt, you must give the de-
PENDANT the benefit of that doubt, and
acqud him.
IN considering the question of the
mental capacity of the defendant at the
time of the commission of the alleged
offensei to entertain a Wilful and de-
liberate intention to kill, it is not neces-
sary that the jury be satisfied beyond
I a reasonable doubt that the defendant
was absolutely of normal mind; it Is
sufficient that the jury be satisfied ac-
cording to the degree of proof requisite
to prove insanity, that the defendant
was capable of reasoning and judging
correctly of his own impulses and de-
termining whether the impulses should
be followed or resisted. And if
you find from the evidence that at the
time of the commission of the alleged
act the defendant, i'm relation to the act
that he was then committing, could dis
tinguish the difference between right
and wrong, and had sufficient intelli-
gence to know that the act that he was
then doing was wrong, and If you fur
ther find from the evidence that he did
commit the act under an impulse, but
that the impulse was not uncontrolla-
BILE or irresistible, but was comfortable
and that he did not control that i'm
pulse and killed his wife while acting
hereunder then charge you that the
defendant was, at the time of the COM
mission of the alleged act, sufficiently
responsible in law for the commission
of the act"