180 Slide – American State Trials 1918 Volume X Leo Frank Document

148 X. AMERICAN STATE TRIALS.

ground of absent witnesses by whom he expected to prove
that he was insane,

T shall not contend that all of these testa are infallible, for
doubtless some of them do occasionally fail, but as a guide in
an inquiry of this kind they are invaluable; and when it can
‘be shown as in the case here, that the prisoner’s conduct does
not square with either of them, it is certainly very safe to
eonelude that he is not a fit subject for this defense.

The subject of insanity in its various forms and stages is
exceedingly difficult to comprehend, and hence the courts
both in England and in this country, acting upon the sug-
gestion of medical jurists have laid down a rule for the guid-
anee of jurors in such eases, which has become of great prac-
tical utility and relieves them of much embarrassment. The
rile brings down the inquiry to the single question of ca-
pacity to distinguish between right and wrong, at the time
when the act was done. In the case of the State v. Baldwin
(12 Mo, 223) the Court charged the jury: That if they found
from the evidence that the defendant committed the act
ebarged, the question then for them to determine was whether,
at the time, he was capable of knowing that the act which he
was committing was an offense against the laws of God. and
man, and had at that time the power of choosing between
good and evil in reference to that act.’”? In reviewing this
eharge the Supreme Court say that they can perceive no legal
objection to it.

Tu the case of Rex v. Oxford, which has already been quoted,
Lord Denman said in his charge to the jury:

“The question is, whether the prisoner was Ishoring under that
species of insanity which will satisfy you that he was quite unaware
of the nature, character and consequences of the act he was com-
mitting; or, in other words, whether he waa under the influence of a
diseased mind, and was really unconscious, at the time he was com-
mitting the act, that it was a orime; the insanity must be such as to
deprive the party charged with crime of the use of reason in regard
to the act done. He may be deranged on other subjects, but if ca-
prble of distingnishing between right and wrot wrong in the particular
act done by him, he is justly liable to be punished as a criminal.”