Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1907-04-11

!
against the defendant and such evil
cence may be presented ~ VIII offset
these allegations ana establish his In :
sanity at The time az the commission OF
the ACT. The law presumcs that SANITY
In the normal condition OF man and
wherein insanity ia the plea as the
condition Of mind ~ the defendant az
the time OF the act that becomes the
| crucial question OF lhe Jury TO decide.
III there existed u shc mind of the
defendant an Insane Illusion II ts not an
e.,tuse unless tho Illusion Is OF such n
character that II true ~ would RESULT In
his injury
Proof Of partial or iuCipient insanity
Is not sufficient aS an excuse Inc set
tied law OF the stnto is mat as long as
that power to appreciate the nature
and quality of the act iH present, No
man must commit crime II ne Wouln
escape the consequences,
'slf ne cocks. aims ana discharges n
revolver as II Is alleged here, dld ne
know when he cooked and hred Inc
| weapon that the act was wrong ANA
/ in0t ii would probably destroy We
aud dld ne know chat The act was for
| hidden by law That Is the quesuoh
/ which the iaw must have answered
| 'I1nGcr she rule OF evidence the story
J claimed By the defendants wife 10 have
been told by her to the defendant. Is
admitted not as affecting the CHARACTER
| OF the deceased but that you might
consider what effect such story wpuIu
| have upon the DEFENDANTS mind. In
considering her story. her credthlllly as
a witness is highly material, and ev-
ery1hng that she has said or done
must nc taken into considerations Her
admissions regarding the relations eX-
listing between herself and the detehd-
| ant prior and subsequent tn this tTaS-
.dy and prior to her marriage or any
other act should be weighed In connec-
sion with her story,
- wide latitude was allowed ON
cross examination. You should give due
credit to all that was developed along
with other facts, The letters the VIE
and the rodiCil before YOU We're not adj
mltted under any ruling as 10 their
competency. but by consent OF COUNSEL.
There has been nc Senal entered
here that death resulted. from pistol
shot wounds inflicted by the defendant.
The legal presumption Is that the
defendant was sane when he committed
the act 1t was not incumbent on the
prosecution to Introduce preliminary
testimony to show hat he was sane
''I'he burden of proof is ON the de
fense.
Whoever denies sanity must prove
that Insanity Is present. The law as
sunes that all men are sane as 1t AS
sunres all men innocent The burden Of
proving a crime is on the prosecution
but the burden of UverthroWing sanity
is ON the person claiming IT, The de-
PENDANT Is entitled to the benefit OF the
doubt in this case.
The Hypothetical questions answered
by the experts assumed certain facts
and the answer was only the opinion of
the expert on those assumed acts. You
are not obligated. nor are you permitted
to accept opinions as YOU would facts
In considering the testimony of medical
anee and knowledge and YOU should
consider the quality Of the medical tes-
1irnony and not its quantity,
1.-The so-called Irresistible llnpI1se has
no place in the law and is not an OK
cuse nor Is every person OF "A lisor-
dered mind. While the burden OF proof
OF INSANITY ia on the defendant he also
is entitled to every reasonable ioubt
on the subject If the defendant knew
the nat1tre ar the nl1alitv nf his ~ ~.
knew the act was NrOnr 1hen he conn
mitted a crime All men differ mental
ly and physically and this makes n i'm
possible, as / said before. for the court
to lay down n fixed rule as showing de.
liberation and reconciliation.
sAs to the distinction between reason.
able doubt and a. possible doubt van
We're thoroughly examined when ynu
were about to become jurors. The, law
does not require that the prosecution
shall efface every possible doubt "a
only requires that the pros ecution shall
go beyond a rea sonahIe dor,bt A r.
cc1der Smlthe once charged q ,ur,- tha
defendant is entitled to have his a,,iIS
esta bished by competent eyidenr. ara
beyond every doubt Ii need MOI he cs-
tablished heynnd I'll do1ht lio' pe eS-
an impossibilIty. Nothing in mis- no.id
Il beyond all doubt. The derendant fs
entitled to every reasonable doubt and
that is all.
A rea soastbie doubt Is such as might
arise in the mind OF an lnteIIi.,ent re-,
who if called I,por TO go man
such d0nbt. would moi be at : loss it w
40 20. a reasonable douht lie nnt w.
Imaginary thing. 1t is such a do,,h, az. az,
arises from the evidence. III ia s,,"h 90
Doubt as palns1akinu man Nigh, 49, -
after Il fun fair and Imnarti,1 u,aio-s
Ing of the evidence To NH such Go,,s..
the defendant is entitled
II any OF yot have a rsoso,,h,.
dou vt chat this defendant ia s',,ii+,. pls s
murder in the first degree mss ba,,I 20
dputt thaJ he is guilty of n, ,,,Sa'. ~, ~. az
SECOND deLr YOU may fina IN M '.' eale
ond degree And so with nans,sneh,os
Hou may In this case Iet ,oe 49,
once more, find the defendant p,,iIt,, ~,
murder in the first degree eniit,y
murder In the second degree o,' -,;,;l,,,
of manslaughter In the frst dacrel
EFF you vote for acouittaI On ,te
ground OF insanity. Won may state M,
ground IN your verdict. W
You mast be guided. gentlemen on,
urely on the evidence TIarnor t,,.oi,.
Al IL. f.t- er,.s,, IL.