The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1912-02-27
SYLVIA MOSTAD
IS mot GUILTY"

Grand Forks, N. d., Feb. Pinot
guilty. was the verdict returned late
yesterday by the jury in the case of
the state against Miss Sylvia Mostad,
charged with murder. The jury came
in about S O'Clock, after celebrating
for seven hours.
Harry Reese, who was arrested with
the Mostad girl and held on a similar
charge was released after the verdict
was rendered.
The crime with which Miss Mostad
and Reese were charged occurred in
the Frederick hotel In this city last
November. Reese and Miss Mostad
remained at the hotel about three days.
After they left, the body of a dead
infant was found under the bath tub
in the room. Warrants were issued
for the two and they were arrested
the same night.
Insanity was the defense put up by
Miss Mostad's attorneys, but the jury
took no ~cognizance of that plea /
rendering the verdict.
Five Forms of verdicts.
Judge TempIeton provided the jury
with five forms of verdicts, including
two of murder in the first degree with
sentences of either death or life i'm
prisonment; one of m~anslaughter in
the second degree, n Of guilty on
account of insanity, and n Of not
guilty.
He laid down the fact that the jury
must be firmly convinced that the in
FAINT whose life the girl is charged
with taking was alive. That point,
he said, the state had to prove beyond
any doubt, else there was no murder.
Judge Templeton defined the sew
eral degrees of murder and homicide.
and said that under the evidence YER
diets of murder in the second degree
and manslaughter in the first degree
could not be returned. Homicide, IL
committed, by the defendant, was set
forth as not being either justiflable or
eXcusable in this case.
Discusses Insanity Question.
The question of insanity was given
considerable attention.
In arriving at a conclusion as to
whether the defendant was or was not
conscious of the occurrence of the
criminal act, l charge o that it is
not material where such unconscious
ness existed by reason of insanity,
delirium, frenzy or otherwise. The
ultimate fact which is a defense is the |
Inconsistencies, and the reaso-4 for
Inconsistencies, is immaterial.
IF you find that the defendant did
actually kill the child in the manner
as alleged in the information, but if
you entertain a reasonable doubt
Nuha+Iar -. r,Hl 81 A. t;non -F ,lnfnnr l
such act she was conscious of the act,
you must acquit her.
THE burden is upon the state to es-
by the evidence beyond a rea-
sonable doubt that she was conscious
of the acts charged, if she committed
such acts . . g. -.
IF the defendant was capable of
knowing the w~rongfulness of her acts
when committed, the defense of in
cannot be invoked in her be-
half
IF you believe from the evidence
the acts charged against this de-
PENDANT in the information were COM
mitted by her as therein charged, but
at the time Of committing the
same the defendant was a l%unatic, or
insane to the extent of obliterating
sense Of right n wrong as to
particular acts done, you should
find the defendant not guilty by rea-
son Of insanity . . "
In order to sustain the defense of
it is not necessary that the
insanity of the accused be established
by preponderance of. the evidence
. p y [
I'm this state the law does not rec
as a defense to a criminal
to n form of insanity, wheth-
it be transitory mania, frenzy, ir-
resistable impulse or any other class
Of insanity in which the defendant
that the act which she does is
wrong, though she is unable to refrain
from doing it. If one has sufficient
mind and understanding to know right
from wrong regarding the particular
act, n is able to comprehend and
understand the consequences of such
act, the law recognizes her as sane,
and holds her responsible for such
act" y = =