The Detroit times., 1908-01-31

appllcdDle 10 the detenSe or insanity
provides that an act done by per.
son who is an idiot, imbecile. lunatic
or insane is not crime"
This language. you Will perceive. Is
very broad and would appear 10 apply
to all persons OF dnsound mind. with
out regard TO the degree of insanity.
but the words OF section FL, 20 which
genera. nSm MoSd. y9u section 49, . tSows
"A PERSON Is NOT EXCUSED
FROM c IMhHSfSn LIAsILTTy As AS AN
PROOF THAT. At THE TIME OF
NAL ACT. HE WAS ISL L,Ap9RINo IN;
AS EITHER NOT TO KNOW THE Ma
TURE AND QUALITY OF THE ACT
HE WAS 4aE DOING NC w OR NOT Wao To KNOW
You will see that the essential ele-
ments In murder In the first degree are
a deliberate and premeditated design to
anrae5 the In sss .seona Ssrss
TO effect the death of the person killed.
but without generalization or delibern-
T srTs The In absence of any design to ef-
feet death. but the killing In the heat
OF passion by means OF dangerous
IL the killing To- not the instant ef-
feet OF impulse. II there 10 hesitation
or doubt TO be overcome. a choice made
as tho result OF thought. however short
the struggle between the intention and
the act. II Is sufficient 20 characterize
the crime az deliberate and premedi-
tated murder.
only an intention to kill. but there
must also be deliberate and prcmedi-
tated design to kill: Such design must
precede the killing by some appreciable
The human mind acts with celebrity
which It Is sometimes impossible to
ana ne %asn' must was deere Res
mined from the merits OF the case.
You may take into consideration
upon ths question lon OF aeiee rat dst and
dant preceding the shooting on the
evening in question as testified to. 30
far as you credit the testimony
sign to erect death, charge you as
This being an essential element OF
murder In the second degree as well
as OF murder in the first degree.
THE rule as to defendant receiving
the benefit of every reasonable doubt
applies not only to the question Of his
guilt Of any crime at all. but even II
he be found guilty. II applies also
to the question OF the grade OF the
crime Of which he may be convicted.
II you should entertain reasonable
doubt as to his guilt OF murder in the
second degree, but no reasonable
doubt Of his guilt OF granddaughter In
the first degree, you will give him the
benefit of the doubt and convict him
of manslaughter in the frst degree
only
"You will remember that you are
not bound by the terms OF the indict-
ment, but IL you find the defendant
guilty, you can find him guilty or
whatever degree Of crime you are
satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.
he is guilty of.
"You will remember that you are
not to be prejudiced by any testi'
mony offered here which reflects upon
the character OF the decedent.
Regarding Insanity.
''Now 1t Is not every phase or de-
gree OF insanity which relieves from
the responsibility OF ones acts. Not
every weak or disordered mind is ex-
cused from the consequences OF crime.
Questions will suggest themselves
to you In this connection for which
you must seek the answer In the testi-
mony In this case. Did the defendant
know the act was wrong? HAD MS
mind slipped from it's moOrings, 80
LnAI 00 WAS UNCONSCIOUS VA taC NAe~>~
inal character and consequence OF his
action? Was he mentally capable OF
entertaining O criminal intent? DID
he comprehend his relation to others
and realize the nature and enormity
OF the act? Did he know the diner.
ence between right and wrong and
have the power to- choose netXeen
them? Partial and incipient insanity
4 nd. % -
sponsibility for crime II there II still
the ability to form o correct precep-
ton of the legal quality or the act
and to know that 1t 10 wrong. Heat
OF passion and feeling produced by
motives OF anger. hatred or revenge, IL
not insanity.
In support Of the defense Of imam.
ity numerous Witnesses have been
produced There was proof offered OF
an hereditary faint OF insanity In the
defendants family. You VIII. OF
course, remember that the only ques'
ton for you to decide Is whether the
defendant was, or was not, insane on
the evening Of June 25. 1906, when the
shooting occurred. :.
ITO conclude, therefore. II you are
satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
upon the proof that ut the time OF the
Commission of the act the defendant
knew the nature and quality OF the act
he was doing and that the act was
wrong. you will find him guilty OF such
degree of crime as under the law as
heretofore laid down the evidence has
satisfied you OF his guilt beyond rea-
'sonable doubt. II, on the contrary,
YOU are satisfied the defendant was Ia
boring under such q defect Of reason
as either not to know the nature and
quality of the acts he was doing. or
not to know the act was wrong, or IL
you entertain a reasonable doubt az
to whether the defendant was laborfng
under such q defect OF reason. as not
to know the nature or quality OF the
act he was doing or not TO know the
act was wrong. you will acQuit the de.
PENDANT upon the ground OF insanity.
SHOULD you find the defendant not
guilty upon the ground Of insanity at
the time of the shooting OF Stanford
White under the law as heretofore laid
down, your verdict will be In the fol-
lowing form:
mot guilty upon the ground OF de-
PENDANTS insanity at the time OF the
commission OF the acts charged in the
Indictment
Should you find the defendant gull
ty, you will indicate by your verdict
the crime OF which you so found him
guilty.
Gentlemen, now leave in your
hands the determination OF the issue