Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1906-02-19
As Rendered by Judge Graves in
Granting the Motion for
New Trial
IN MCKINNEY CRUELTY CASE
State Did Not Ask for Sufficient In,
struction to the Jury-Question
of Sanity Involved.

jury. The opinion is given in full, with
the exception of certain law citations,
as follows:
The indictment in this case charges
the defendant with cruelty TO Stella
Grady, in violation of Sec. SO of the
criminal code.
The defense relied on is the insanity
of the defendant The jury found the
defendant guilty as charged
The motion for a new trial is based
on numerous grounds, all of which |
have carefully considered and none of
which. with a single exception, in the
view | take of the case, requires analy-
sis or comment i'll passing on this mo-
ton; it is enough TO say that but for
this one ground | would have no hest
fancy in overriding the motion. refer
to the contention that the verdict is
contrary to the law and the evidence.
In order TO sustain a conviction for
crime of any kind where the defense is
insanity, the defendant must be shown
beyond reasonable doubt to be sane
at the time when the act was commit
ted and at the time when the trial is
conducted. II defendant is shown by
the evidence to be insane at either of
those times, no conviction can be sus-
tanned. In law verdict of guilty in
case like this is a finding by the jury
that the evidence establishes beyond
a reasonable doubt the sanity of the
defendant at both of these times.
The verdict in this case is a finding
by the jury that the defendant was
u,
mitted, and at the time of the trial
The evidence on the question whether
the defendant was sane at the time of
the commission of the acts charged
was conflicting; many witnesses of
equal credibility testified pro and con
on that issue. Instructions were asked
by both the state and the defense and
given by the court fully and fairly
presenting TO the jury that issue. and
the jury found that the defendant was
sane at the time the acts were com
mitted. and after a careful considera-
ton of the evidence, | am not pre-
pared 10 say that their finding in that
regard is not sustained by the evidence.
No RcbutlinG Testimony.
The evidence on the question wheth-
er the defendant was sane at the time
of the trial was all in harmony. All
the witnesses for the state as well as
all the witnesses for the defense. who
testified from personal observation as
to her condition of mind since she was
sent TO the sanitarium, unite in saying
that she was insane at the times con-
corning which they gave testimony. DIR.
Brown, DIR. Church, DR.. Craig, DR. Car
ter and the nurse all testify that they
saw her at the sanitarium and that she
was insane while there. Dr. Reynolds,
DIR. Carter and Dr. Wright all testify
that since her return to Aledo they
have seen her and that she is insane
Cor. as DR. Reynolds put it. "unbal-
anced," which is the same thing) since
her return TO Aledo for trial No testi-
mony whatever was offered by the
state to rebut this overwhelming teSti-
mOny, as TO her insanity since she was
sent to the sanitarium. The testimony
therefore stands as true, and the in
sanity of the defendant at the times
testified to stands established beyond
peradventure.
The law in this state is well settled
that when the insanity of a person is
once established it is presumed to con-
tinue until the contrary is shown by
proof. No proof even tending to show
her.to be sane at the time of the trial
or at any time since she was sent to
the sanitarium having been offered
by the state, the condition of insanity
at the time of the trial is conclusively
established by the evidence. and the
court is bound by what is conclusively
established by the evidence. Neither
jury nor court have any right to be
governed by their own private notions
of fact Only insofar as a fact be-
comes known through the medium of
evidence introduced in court can it be
considered Whatever may be the pri
vate notion of jury or court on the
question of this defendants sanity or
insanity at the time of the trial, it must
be put aside if it is in conflict with the
evidence. This principle is known to
all lawyers and was known to the at
torneys for the state in this trial. and
knowing that. ii was their duty to
bring forward all the evidence they
had or knew of on the subject of her
being insane at the time of the trial.
rebutting that claim, SO that the jury
could act advisedly in the finding of
their verdict and the court could have
something on which verdict could be
sustained. Whether any such evidence
existed ] do not know: all do know
is that no such evidence was offered
by them, and that in their argument to
the jury they practically admitted that
the evidence showed that she was in
sane at the time of the trial. but that
If so. she became insane after the in
dictment and because of the trouble
and mental strain to the charges made |
against her, and then told the jury that |