Opinion ID: 1968621
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Refusal Of Court To Charge Upon Temporary Insanity

Text: Appellant objects to the refusal of the court below to charge the jury upon temporary insanity. In the statement of appellant introduced in evidence by the State, appellant stated that as a result of the inhuman and barbarous treatment of her by deceased, she had reached the blowing point and she couldn't stand it any more   . There was also evidence that after the shooting appellant was excited and perhaps hysterical. However, there was no evidence of any kind indicating mental derangement. It has been shown by the State that appellant killed deceased with a deadly weapon. There is a presumption that appellant knew the consequences of her act and that she was sane at the time of its commission. The burden was therefore upon her to prove the contrary. State v. Pratt, Houst.Cr.Cas. 249; State v. Reidell, 9 Houst. 470, 14 A. 550; State v. Lee, 1 Boyce 18, 74 A. 4; State v. Hand, 1 Marv. 545, 41 A. 192; State v. Jack, 4 Penn. 470, 58 A. 833; State v. Cole, 2 Penn. 344, 45 A. 391; State v. West, 1 Houst.Cr.Cas. 371, 399. No testimony was offered by appellant or on her behalf tending to show insanity on her part at the time of the homicide. The most that can be said for appellant's contention is that the treatment which she had received at the hands of deceased had caused her to go into an emotional frenzy. It is true that a few hours before the commission of the homicide appellant had been raped, had been forced to permit unnatural intercourse with deceased, and had been threatened with a revolver. Unquestionably, such inhuman acts were sufficient to cause her to become highly excitable and hysterical. But a frenzy introduced by mere passion or other overwhelming emotion not growing out of a mental disease does not, of itself, constitute insanity. State v. Reidell, supra; Guetig v. State, 66 Ind. 94, 32 Am.Rep. 99. See 14 Am.Jur., Criminal Law, Sec. 35, p. 793; 40 C.J.S., Homicide, § 4, note 96, p. 829. The court below was correct in its refusal of appellant's request for a charge on insanity.