Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-10-28

inal or by copy certified by the
legal keeper thereof, together with a
certificate under the great or prin-
cipal seal of the country or sovereign
thereof, that the document is a valid
and subsisting document of such
country, and that the CODY is duly
certified by the officer having the
legal custdy Of such original"
NO such certificate appears upon the
copy offered in evidence nor does the
communication purport to be a COPY
OF any original document but a sum
mary Of the history of certain men,
Ders OF the Hassing family, compiled
partly from the records of the asy-
lum, partly from journals of the fam
lily, and partly from oral statements
OF members of the family. 1t was
clearly inadmissible.
The instructions requested were
properly refused They present the
Irresistible Impulse" doctrine at its
very worst, and entirely ignore the
difference between an impulse to kill.
arising from mental disease or from
sudden and sufficient provocation. "
and one which springs from anger
or a wicked and furious desire for
revenge. Whatever may be the rule
IN other jurisdictions, we are of the
opinion that the test of insanity in
this jurisdiction is the CAPACITY IN
distinguish bteween right and wrong.
Sec. 24OS L. o. L. is as follows: "A
morbid propensity to commit prohib-
lted acts, existing in the mind of a
person, who is not shown to have been
incapable of knowing the wrongful
ness of such acts, forms no defense to
prosecution therefor" The intent
of this statute is to establish a con-
elusive presumption that a person
having sufficient mentality to know
that an act is wrongful and unlawful
is capable of governing his conduct
by that knowledge, and of resisting
any impulse to violate the law.
The only case in which our law
recognizes any irresistible impulse In
Kill is in Sec 1897 L. o. L., which
provides: IF any person shall, with
out malice, express or implied and
without deliberation, upon a sudden
neat of passion, caused by a provo
cation apparently sufficient to make
the passion irresistible, voluntarily
XIII another, such person shall be
deemed guilty of manslaughter." This
phase of the case was fully presented
to the jury in the general charge. and
in so presenting it the court was ouite
as favorable to the defendant as the
evidence warranted, since in this case
there was no sudden heat of passion
and no propagation Briefly, the evil
dence disclosed that defendant for
some time before the killing had
beaten and abused his wife, and. in
one instance, driven her from home.
that he had been arrested for threat
ening to kill her, and upon his prom
Use to leave her alone had been al
lowed his liberty; that, upon her re-
fusal to again live with him, he wait
ed at a dark corner and after she had
fallen in an attempt to escape from
him, shot her to death and afterwards
expressed satisfaction at the deed. The
selection of the place, the instrument
and the time to consummate the act
showed deliberation and premedita-
ton, and a knowledge of it's wrong
fulness. Independent of the statute,
the weight Of authority is against the
doctrine that defense of an irresis.-
ible impulse to kill can be upheld IN
any case where there exists sufficient
mentality to know the wrongfulnegs
and unlawfulness of the ?ct.
In Flanagan V. People, 90 n. Y. 467,
the court, speaking of the doctrine of
irresistible impulse" say: "The ar
gument proceeds upon the theory that
there is a form of insanity in which
the faculties are so disordered and
deranged that a man, though he per-
ceives the moral quality of his acts,
is unable to control them, and is urged
by some mysterious pressure to the
commission of acts. the consequences
of which he anticipates but cannot
avoid. Whatever medical or scientific
authority there may be for this view,
it has not been accepted by courts Of
law. The vagueness and uncertainty
of the inquiry which would be op-
ened, and the manifest danger of in
PRODUCING the limitation claimed into
the rule of responsibility, in cases of
crime, may well cause courts to INlse
before asserting to it. Indulgence in
evil passions weakens the restraining
power of the will and conscience; and
the rule suggested would be the cover
for the commission of crime and its
justification. The doctrine that a
criminal act may be excused upon the
notion of an irresistible impulse to
commit it, where the offender has the
ability to discover his legal and moral
duty in respect to it, has no place in
the law
In State V. Knight, 95 Me. 467 the
court in an exhaustive opinion repu-
diate the theory of an irresistible i'm
pulse associated with a capacity TO
discern right from wrong and quote
with approval from DR.. Hammond as
follows: Although not a test of in
sanity, the knowledge Of right and
wrong is a test of responsibility.
Any individual having the capacity to
know that an act which he contem-
plates is contrary to law, should be
deemed legally responsible and should
suffer punishment. He possesses what
is caleld by Balm punishable.
The only forms of insanity which, in
my opinion, should absolve from re-
sponsibility are such a degree OF
idiocy dementia or mania as Dreyepts