The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1907-02-15

renal CODE above quoted. In this STATE
therefore, al insane irresistible i'm.
pulse is a defense if the accused did
not know the nature and quality @.
his act, or if he did o. know that il
was wrong, but not otherwise, even
though medical experts may all agree
in .~estifying that the impulse was Que
TO genuine insanity, and that II wa:
irresistible. People VS.. Carpenter, 10z
y. Y. 238.
Emotional insanity.
Mere motional insanity, SO called,
where the person knows the nature
and quality of his act and that it was
wrong, is no defense anywhere, and is
expressly excluded in New York by the
provisions of the Penal Code quoted
above. If a man under the influence
Of excitement, position, IT fenZs,
caused by anger, jealousy, the passion
of revenge OF any other cause what
ever, kills another, when he has suffi-
Gent mental capacity 10 know the ma
ture and quality 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 deliber-
alton and generalization, which are
necessary to murder in the first degree
people vs. Barberi, 149 N. Y. 256; Il
Cyc 1921, put he is not exempted n
tirely from responsibility, even though
his excitement or passion may have
been apparently uncomfortable, and, it
has been held, even though he may
have also been labOring under some
mental defect, rendering him more LA
Bile than a perfectly sane man 10 yielc
to the influence of such excitement Or
passion. q Cyc 66G; People VS.. Foy,
1873 N. Y. 664.
This rule, however, does not ex-
| clude as a denfense 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 pai-
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 a defense as like insanity
produced by any other cause; and il
there is any evidt.p tending 20 show
such genuine insanity, it is within the
exclusive province Of he jury to de-
termine whether as a matter Of fact II
did exist. People S. Foy, 1873 n. Y.
664.
That may be ~Innocent.t
f"Refe1ring to the case of Ha"'
Thaw, who is now in trial III New
York for the murder of Stanford
White, it seems clear from this sum
mary Of the law that he may be in
nocent. and the homicide merely a
great misfortune. He is certainly not
responsible IL, by reason Of genuine in
sanity at the very time Of the homi-
eide, by whatever it may have
been produced, and the testimony thus
show ample for at least a tenn
porary overthrow of reason-he WAS
incapable Of knowing the nature anG
quality OF his act, or 6ncapable OF
knowing hat the act was wrong. And
even though he may have been In ali
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 ana
communicated to him, he was labOr1ng
under a genuine insane delusion that
it was necessary for him to kill White
as he did to ave either himself or his
wife from death or great bodily harm,
however unnecessary the bomic.ae Il sy
in fact have been, then he was guilty
of no crime at all, for if such were the
real facts, the homicide would be justl-
fable"
"O course, the existence Of such III
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
it. If such evidence is introduced and
it is sufficient to raise a reasonable
doubt in the minds of the jury as lC
whether it did exist or not, then, under
the law of New York, the defendant
must be acquitted.