The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1907-05-07

~
yond reasonable doubt, he will be held
amenable to the law. Here, whether the
insanity be general or partial, whether
continuous or periodical, the degree of it
must have been sufficiently great to have
controlled the will of the accused at the
time Of the commission of the act. Where
reason ceases to have dominion over the
mind, proven to be diseased, the person
reaches a degree of insanity where Grim
inal responsibility ceases, and account
ability to the law for the purpose of pun
ishment no longer exists.
The real test, as | understand it, of La,
bility or non-lability rests upon the prop
osition whether at the time the defend
ant took the money he had a diseased
BRAIN and it was not partially diseased,
or to some extent diseased, but diseased
TO the extent that he was incapable of
forming a criminal intent, and that the
disease had so taken charge of his brain
and so impell9d it that at the time his
will power, judgment reflection and con-
troll of his mental faculties We're impaired
so that the act done was an Irresistible
and uncomfortable impulse with him at the
time he committed the act; If his brain
was in this condition he can not be pun
ished, but if his brain was not In this
condition he can be punished by the
law; remembering that the burden is upon
the government to establish that he was
of sound mind, and by that term it is not
meant that he was of perfectly sound
mind but that he had sufficient mind TO
know right from wrong, and knowing
that the act he was committing at the
time he was performing Il was a wrong
full act in violation of human law and he
could be punished therefor, and that he
did not perform the act because he was
co1Nrolled by irresistible and uncontrol-
able impulse. In that state of the case
the defendant could not be excused upon
the ground of insanity, and 1t would be
your duty to convict him. But If you find
from the evidence, or have a reasonable
doubt in regard thereto, that his brain a t
the time he committed the act was i'm
paired by disease and the embezzlement
was the product of such disease, and that
he was incapable of forming a criminal
intent and that he had no control over
his mental faculties and the will power
to control his actions. but simply took
the money from the First National bank
of Birmingham while he was laboring un-
der deusion which absolutely controll-
ed him, and that his act was one of ire
sistible impulse, and not of judgment in
that event he would be entitled to your
aequittal However, i'm the consideration
of this question you must bear in mind,
gentlemen, is l have said that it is a
presumption of the law, justified by the
general experience of mankind, as well
as of considerations of public safety, that
a man is presumed to be sane until he
is proved to be insane If this presumption
was mot INDUCED, the government would
always be under the necessity of adduc-
ing affirma tive evidence of the sanity OF
the accused at the outset. And a require
nent of that character would seriously
delay and embarrass the enforcement of
law against crime, and in most cases be
Inn Of w on he la
sumes that every one charged with crime
is sane, and thus supplies in the first
instance the required proof of capacity
to commit crime. III authorizes the jury
to assume at the outset that the accused
is criminally responsible for his acts, but
that Is not conclusive presumption,
which the law upon grounds of public
policy forbids to be overthrown or inn
paired by opposing proof.
1t is disputable or often designated a
rebutta BILE presumption, resulting from the
connection ordinarily existing between
certain facts-such connection IS said by
GreenIeaf, in his work on evidence. not
being 80 intimate nor so nearly uni
versal, as to render it expedient that 1t
should be absolutely and imperatvely
presumed to exist In every case, all the
evidence to the contrary being rejected;
but yet 1t is so general, and so nearly
universal, that the law itself, without the
aid of jury, infers the one fact from
the proved existence Of the other. In the
absence of all opposing evidence"
The defense attempted to be made by
the proof is that a result of certain
mental decisions the defendants mind
became so diseased as TO render him in
competent or unable to discern the wrong
in these acts done by him. or to resist
the impulse to do them. 1t is not every
suspicion, or degree of unsoundness Of
mind that makes a man Irresponsible 1t
need not be violent or be manifestly
alike on all subjects. but 1t must be such
on the particular subject out of which
the acts charged an offense are
claimed to have sprung as to render him
incapable by reason of such mental I'M
soundness to discern the wrong in com
hitting such acts. and 1t must be shown
that the acts resulted from such unsound-
ness OF mind. As was said In Guiteaus'
case 10th Federal Reporter. 1853, "a jury
is not warranted in inferrng that a man
is insane from the mere facts of his com
hitting a crime, or from the enormty
of the crime, or from the mere apparent
absence OF adequate motive for III for the
law assumes that there is a bad motive
II nothing else appears"
In order to enable YOU to exercise a
safe judgment on the question of the de-
PENDANTS responsibility at the time of the
commission of the acts complained of In
the Indictment you have been permitted
to hear proof of his habits and conduct
for a period of time prior to. during and
since the time of the taking of the
money, and as to his health and physical
condition prior to the commission of said
acts Ordinarily, witnesses are not per-
mitted to give their opinions to the jury,