Rockingham post-dispatch. [volume] (Rockingham, N.C.) 1917-1965, 1920-01-01

that he is insane noW-then he would
be brought back here and tried for the
offense. Of course that would not pre-
Glade his pleading insanity at the time
of the commission of the act, and that
/ question would doubtless be- raised
again, but we are interested in the
question Of whether he has sufficient
capacity now to go upon trial. Is his
reason dethroned? Or does he know
the difference between right and
! wrong? Has he sufficient mental ca
pacity to understand the moral obli-
cation devolving upon a man, and
does he know the character Of his
criminal acts? The wording of the
issue, gentlemen, is as follows: "Is
the defendant, Foster L. Parsons, by
reason of insanity at the present
time, incapacitated to plead to the in
dictment and stand trial." You start
out with the presumption That he is
sufficiently sane to plead to the in
dictment, ard the burden is on him to
satisfy you that he is not before you
can answer the. issue in the affirma-
tive. But if you find as a fact, from
this evidence in TIE case that he is in
sane; does not know the difference
between right and wrong and has not
sufficient mental capacity to conduct
his own defense, why it would be your
duty to answer the Issue eyes" But
if you are not satisfied from the evil
dence. it would be your duty to an
swer it "No."
Now, gentlemen, it is not merely a
question as to whether the defendant
has capacity to tell the truth, for a
man might be able to tell the truth,
and yet not know the difference be-
tween right and wrong; but the ques-
ton is: Has he sufficient mental ca
pacity to be able to distinguish good
from evil; to comprehend the relation
he owes to others and to be able to
conduct his defense rightly?
The State replying to the evidence
of the defendant, has offered evidence
tending to show that while the de-
PENDANT is young man and that while
he may have made some bad trades,
vet he has engaged in business at diff
ferent places in the State; that he has
gone about his affairs; that he has
married a wife; that he has been
drinking Intoxicating bitters or some
corcoction;. that he has had sufficient
capacity to induce men to take him
out riding in automobiles; that he had
a pistol; that he has killed two lAen
and that he has taken them from the
automobiles away from the road and
deposited their bodies in secluded
spots; and that he has sold his teams
in Durham preparatory to going
south, to Georgia, and that while
passing through on his way south, he
was arrested. That he has been put
in Jail. That witnesses have talked to
him in jail,-physicians and laymen.
The State contends that from the evil
dence in this case you ought to find
that he has discussed with them ra-
tionallv, matters that pertained to his
own affairs. That he has talked about
his own condition; that he told the
doctor that he thought be had been
doing wrong and that he did not think
he was crazy himself. The State says,
gentlemen, that the condition Of
mans mind is subject to be shown By
his conduct, by his demeanor and by
the manner in which he discusses or
carries on o conversation with another
and that from the evidence in this
case, the State contends the defendant
is an intelligent man; that he IS q
sane man; that he understands the
obligation which he owes to society
and to Others end that he knows the
difference between right and wrong
and is, fully capable Of nationally con-
Quoting his defense.
TIE State has offered evidence of
physicians who have talked with the
defendant and they have expressed
the opinion that he is rot afflicted
Cor at least one CT tie physicians
said in his opinion he did not have
dementia praecox; or that form of in
sanity which tie defendant contends
he is now suffering with)-and they
have expressed the opinion that he is
sane. But | call your attention, gem
tlemen, to the fact that that is an
opinion and you gentlemen are re-
quired to find the facts. 1t is not
merely an opinion TIT you express,
but it is verdict which you render.
Now, gentlemen, you have heard the
evidence; lou have listened to the
witnesses; counsel on both sides have
argued the case fully and at consid-
cradle length. see no necessity in
recapitulating the evidence in detail
for you. You are sensible men and
men of good judgment and law-abid-
ing citizens. The law says you are.
You have the decision of question
affecting the defendant. in this case
and also affecting the community at
large. Something has been said, gem
tlemen, in the argument, about the
sympathy you should have for the de-