Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1914-01-21

fore. finding that he was insane on
the 25th day Of March did not neces-
sarily determine that he was insane at
the time the shot was fired.
Insane When Tried.
"The special interrogatory submitted
to the jury, not only requests them to
state. whether or not he was insane on
the 25th day Of March. 1911. but
reaches in its inquiry. the very time at
which the shot was fired. It is to be
presumed that the court did not sub
NIT the interrogatory except for the in
formation OF the court upon the issue
rendered, and for the purpose Of en-
abling the court to know what the
jury's find was upon that issue. Tho
insanity Of the defendant at any other
TO that would not be helpful to the
court in determining what its duty was
to the state and to the defendant. The
court had very explicitly and definite-
ly defined to the jury that insanity, its
character and degree. which relieves
from criminal responsibility. The
court had clearly differentiated be-
tween that and voluntary intoxication,
and the jury was warned not to confuse
insanity with intoxication. The court
clearly and definitely directed the
jury's attention to the difference be-
tween insanity and passion or revenge,
and pointed out to them in unmistak-
able terms, the difference the Grim
inality of an act, when the act is the
direct result or offspring Of insanity,
and where the act is the result or Off
spring of passion and revenge, and said
to the jury, In language that could not
be misunderstood, that passion or re-
venge. even tho it had gained control
Of the person to such an extent that
reason was driven from Its seat, would
not constitute such insanity as would
excuse one in the commission of an act
which otherwise would be criminal.
"The interrogatory propounded by
the court was submitted to the Jury for
the purpose Of ascertaining from them
what their finding was upon the de-
tense interposed. This was evidently
the purpose Of the court in submitting
the interrogatory. It was evidently sub
mitted to the jury for the purpose of as
pertaining fro q them definite answer
or finding upon this issue. The issue
for the jury to determine. and to which
this question was directed was: was
the defendant insane at the time he
shot Edward Sterling" The jury an
swered: "The defendant was insane at
the time he shot Edward Sterling"
The plea was that he was insane, and
the evidence was offered to support this
plea. It was material issue, and one
which the jury were required to pass
upon and determine before they could
reach final conclusion upon the ques-
ton Of his guilt or innocence Of the
charge made against him.
Verdict Conflicting.
upon what rational hypothesis the
jury could have found. under the law
as given to them by the court, and the
evidence as submitted to them, that the
was insane at the time that he
committed the act charged against him
and yet was criminally responsible for
the commission of the act, the writer
Of this opinion is unable to determine.
It must be borne in mind that practi-
cally all the evidence was introduced
on this issue. The question Of defend.
ants criminality at every stage Of the
case was challenged upon this ground.
A majority Of the court, however, Is Of
the opinion that neither the question
nor the answer presented the matter
to the jury so that 1t can be said there
from that the Jury affirmatively found
that, tho insane, his insanity had
reached a point where he was legally
excused from criminal responsibility
for his act; that even tho insane he
could not be excused II he was then
able to control his acts II he desired to
do 80, and even tho insane, he would
not be excused unless the act charged
against him was the immediate Off
spring of such insanity: that the ques-