The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1907-07-04

does not permit other persons to give
the same kind Of evidence. The jury is
in all cases, to determine what weight is
to be given to such testimony; but to
instruct them that the opinion of the
expert is entitled to no weight or to no
greater weight than the opinion of
persons not allowed to give any, or to
instruct the jury that they are equally
skilled, and as able to decide from facts
proven whether such facts are indica-
tions of the disease known as insanity,
as are experts in that branch of medical
science, is to overturn the theory of the
law and the established rules of evil
dence on that subject. 1t is we'll settled
that the knowledge and experience of
medical experts is of great value in
questions of insanity. They are like
those of experts in all other branches of
science and art. The opinions of men
of study, experience and skill in the
particular branch of learning relating to
the matter under investigation are en-
titled to great weight where they are
invariably conclusions founded on facts
that have been satisfactory established,
and but little weight where they are
merely speculative.
Upon questions involving a highly
specialized art, with respect to which
layman can have no knowledge at all,
the court and jury must be dependent
on expert testimony; and when there is
no such evidence to support an allega-
tion depending upon such question,
there is nothing to justify submitting
tho icCuaS to tho iur,,
The opinion of experts must be pre-
Dictated upon the facts established by
the proof in the case to be admissible.
Professional opinions upon abstract
questions of science, having no relation
to the facts in issue tend to lead the
minds of the jury from the real point of
inquiry. Where the right to recover
rests entirely upon the opinion of ex-
perts, their character as such must be
satisfactory established, and their testi-
mony must be free from suspicion of
interest, bias or prejudice. Their
opinions are not conclusive, but are to
be weighed by the jury like all other
evidence. The jury may act against the
greater number ofopinions, and in favor
of the fewer, for the opinion of the ex-
pert may, on account of his greater
knowledge and experience on the SUBJ
ject, or from his giving fuller details of
the case, be of greater knowledge and
experience on the subject, or from his
giving fuller details of the case, be of
greater value to the jury than the OPP
posite opinions of several.
Great respect should be paid to the
opinion of such class of witnesses, but
they are no more controlling than those
of any other class or body of men when
speaking upon subjects which lie within
the range of common observation and
experience. 1t has been we'll said that
men of science may as we'll be mistaken
as men in the ordinary walks of life,
and practical men may have not I'M
frequently achieved what science has
demonstrated to be unattainable.
Science proved that the Atlantic could
never have been crossed by steam
vessel; but bold sailor, aided by a
skillful engineer and a faithful in
dustrious stoker, solved the problem by
doing the thing which the theorist pro-
nounced impracticable.
1t has been very we'll remarked that
there are some points on which men of
fair understanding, who have had good
opportunities for observation, will not
readily surrender their convictions, even
to the opinions of men of higher reach
of mind, and whose special pursuits may
have made them more conversant with
such subjects. A little method, it is
said, is wor good deal of money, and
with equal truth it may perhaps be said
that on some questions, which lie con-
fessedly within the range of professional
skill and experience, little common
sense may be worth great deal of
science.
The physician, therefore, being not
only competent witness in cases where
the issue raises the question of sanity
or insanity, but witness of special i'm
portance, and although the same is a
mixed question of fact and law for the
courts to decide and not the expert, vet
the degree of insanity that excuses the
commission of crime becomes of special
interest to the profession.
Of course it is we'll understood that
an idiot or lunatic, or one permanently
insane, or one who is otherwise unsound
in mind to the extent that he does not
know whether he is doing right or
wrong, is not punishable for any act he
may do while in that condition. The
law is that a person cannot be respon-
sible for crime unless he possesses
sufficient mental capacity and intelli-
gence to have criminal intent, and if
his mental forces are so deficient that
he has no will, conscience or controlling
mental power, or through the over
whelming violence of mental disease
his intellectual power is for the time
being obligated, he is not responsible
moral agent, and is not responsible
criminally for his acts.
The broad fundamental doctrine on
this subject may be stated as follows
mo act done by person in state Of
insanity can be regarded as an otfense
and no insane person can be tried, sen.
fenced to any punishment, or punished
for any act or otfense which he commits
while in that condition. On this sub
ject Blackstone says: "If man in his
sound memory commits capital offense
and before Arrangement for it he be.
comes mad he shall not be tried; if tried
and found guilty and he loses his senses