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

d2 eye 169; q Cyc 665), the insanity
must be such as TO have this effect.
In this state section 20 Of the Penal
Code declares hi. AN act done by 4
person who is an idiot, imbeciie, luna
tic or insane, is not a Timo. But
section II expressly provides that a
person is not excused from criminal
liability as an idiot, imbecile, lunatic,
or insane person, except upon proof
that, at the time Of committing the
alleged criminal act, he was laborlus
under such a defect OF a s. as
either, % not to know the nature ana
quality of the act he was doing, Or
(2) not To know that the act was
wrong" and section % provides that
"a morbid prop -ls!y to commit pro
hibited acts existing in the mind or
a person who is not shown to have
been incapable Of knowing the wrong
fitness Of such acts, forms no defense
TO a prosecution therefor"
These porvisi3Is prescribed he Un'y
test of insanity as a defense in cr1ml-
nal cases known TO the law of New
York, and therefore although a man
may be to some extent insane when he
kills another, and although medical
experts may agree in 80 testifylng,
he is nevertheless criminally response
BILE if, Notwithstanding his defective
:or perverted mental d 1itiop. he
knew the nature and quality Of his act
and knew that it was wrong. People
VS.. Crist, 1853 y. Y. 90; People vs..
Silverman ISL n. Y. $50. Whether ne
was insane to such an extent is a ques-
tion for the jury. The defense lnus
introduce some evidence of insanity,
but if it dos, then the jury, in order to
convict, must be convinced of his insaa
ity beyond a REASONABLE doubt.
Insane decisions.
In order that insanity may be sue
cesSfully set up as a defense in a
prosecution for homicide, it is not
Necessary that the defendant shall lave
been totally insane, n on all sub
jects, but mOnOmania, or an insane de-
ialsiOn, may be sufficient to exempt.
although on all other subjects the &C
cused may have been perfectly sane.
Whether it is Or not in New York
must be determined by applying the
test laid down in section q OF the Pen
al Code above quoted; and therefore ali
insane delusion is a defense if it was
such as to prevent the accused from
knowing the nature and quality of has
ACT. or from knowing that it was
wrong, but not otherwise. People vs.
Taylor, 1873 N. Y. 1913. The rule as to
this phase Of insanity is correctly
given in q Cyclopedia Of Law Il
Procedure, p. 667, in substance as fol-
lows: If the defendant is partially in
sane, that is, subject to insane delu-
sions as to certain things, but in other
respects n he is not criminally re-
%sponsible if the homIciie would be OK
susable OF justifable in cas- the facts
were as his delusion leads him to be-
lieve them to be; but if the homicide
would not be ~justi1able or e%xcusable
under those circumstances, the delu-
sion is generally held rot TO free aim
from responsibility. See People Us.
Taylor. 1873 N. Y.
ITO illustrate: II a maa kills an
other under the influence of an insane
delusfon that God has commanded him
to do 50. he is guilty Of no crime for
instead OF knowing that the act Is
wrong, he believes it is right. OF
course, whether he did kill under the
influence of such a delusion La a ores
ton for the jury on the evidence. Inc
same is true il a man kills another
under the influence of an insane dslu-
sion that the other is in the act OF
attempting to kill him (the slayer) or
to inf1ict g%rievous bodily harm, for If
such were really the case, the homi-
eide would be justifable. And the rule
also applies if Il man kills another uli-
der an insane delusion that the killing
is necessary to save his wife from
death on great bodily harm, for he has
the same right to defend his wife as he
has to defend himself.
"On the other hand if a mar kills
another in revenge under an insan
delusiOn that the other has inflicted u
serious injury to his character Or for
tune, he is fully responsible, for even
if the supposed facts were true, they
would not justify or excuse the homl
eide. And the same is true if a man i
kills another in revenge or jealous pas
sion under an insane delusion that the |
other has ruined his wife or is at
tempting to take her from him, 1ur
such facts, if they really existed, would
not Justify or excuse. See People VS.. !
Taylor, 13S n. Y. 39S.
In any case there must to exempt
from responsibility, be a direct con-
nection between the mOnomania or de-
fusion and the homicide; and care
must be taken to distinguish an insane
delusiOn from the concIu-