Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1907-02-17

though medical experts may all agree
in testifying that the impulse was due
to genuine insanity. and that it was
irresistible People V Carpenter. 1O2
N. Y. 23S.
Mere emotional insanity. so called.
where the person knows the nature and
quality of his act and that ii is wrong.
is no defense anywhere, and is express
~ excluded in New York by the pro-
visions of the Penal Code quoted above.
If a man under the influence of excite
ment. passion, or frenzy. caused by
anger. jealousy, the passion of revenge,
or any other cause whatever, kills an
other. when he has sufficient mental
capacity to know the nature and quail
ity of his act. and that it is wrong, he
may be guilty of murder in the second
degree only. because of the absence OF
the elements of deliberation and pre-
meditation, which are necessary to
murder i'm the first degree people Y.
Barberi, 149 y. Y. 25G; p eye 1922.
but he is not exempted entirely from
responsibility. even though his excite
ment or passion may have been ap-
parently uncomfortable, and, it has
/ been held. even though he may have
also been laboring under some mental
defect. rendering him more liable than
a perfectly sane man to yield TO the
influence of such excitement or passion.
q eye 666; People V. Foy, 1873 y. Y.
G6s
This rule. however. does not eX-
clude as a defense genuine insanity,
as distinguished from mere turbulence
of passion. merely because it was pro-
duced by anger, jealousy, revenge. or
other like cause. If it was genuine
insanity. whether total or merely par
tial as in case of delusion. and pre-
vented the accused from knowing the
nature and quality of his act, or from
knowing that the act was wrong. it
is as complete 4 defense as like insan-
ity produced any other cause: and if
there is any evidence tending to show
such genuine insanity. it is within the
exclusive province of the jury to deter
mine whether as a matter of fact. it did
not exist. People Y. Foy. 1SS NY 66i.
Referring to the case of Harry Thaw
who is on trial in New York for the
murder of Stanford White. it seems
clear from this summary of the law
that he may be innocent. and the homi-
eide merely a great misfortune. He Is
certainly not responsible if. by reason
Of genuine insanity at the very time OF
the homicide. by whatever cause it may
have been produced. and the testimony
thus far introduced. If true. would seem
to show ample cause for at least Il
temporary overthrow Of reason-he was /
incapable of knowing the nature and
quality of his act. or incapable of
knowing that the act was wrong. And
even though he may have been in all
other respects sane. if at the very time |
of the homicide. by reason Of brooding |
over the supposed wrongs, or from |
any other cause. aided perhaps by |
threats against his life made by White |
and communicated to him, he was Ia
boring under a genuine insane delu |
sion that il was necessary>for him to /
kill White as he did TO save either him /
self or his wife from death or great !
bodily harm. however unnecessary the I
homicide may in fact have been. then 1
he was guilty of no crime at all. for If /
such We're the real facts, the homicide |
would be justifable-
"Of course. the existence of such in /
sanity or insane delusion is a question
of fact TO be determined by the jury
from the evidence and the defense
must introduce some evidence to prove
ii. If SUCH evidence is introduced and /
it is sufficient to raise a reasonable
doubt in the minds Of the jury as To
il did exist or not. then. I'M
der the law of New York. the defend
ant must be acquitted