Armstrong v. State

Citations

• 27 Fla. 366

Syllabus

<p>1. A charge by the trial judge that “when insanity is set up as a defence in a criminal case, it must be established to the satisfaction of the jury by a preponderance of the evidence, and a reasonable doubt of the descendant’s sanity, raised by all the evidence, does not justify an acquittal,” is erroneous.</p> <p>2. In criminal cases where the plea of insanity is set up as a defence, and evidence is introduced which tends to rebut the presumption of sauity on the part of the accused, and the jury entertain a reasonable doubt, after considering all the evidence as to his sanity, it is their duty to acquit him.</p> <p>8. Tlie case of Hodge vs. State, 7 So. Rep., ¡598. on this subject, approved and followed.</p>