Commonwealth v. Gerade

Citations

• 145 Pa. 289
• 22 A. 464
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 667

Syllabus

<p>1. Although, on the trial of an indictment, the burden is on the commonwealth, without shifting, to prove, not only to the satisfaction of the jury but beyond a reasonable doubt, the presence of every ingredient necessary to constitute the crime charged, yet there are presumptions of fact which will stand for full proof until the contrary is shown.</p> <p>2. Inasmuch as sanity is the normal condition of man, every one is presumed to be sane; and that presumption will serve the commonwealth as the full equivalent of express proof, until it is successfully rebutted by the defendant by fairly preponderating evidence that he was insane at the time of committing the crime alleged against him.†</p> <p>3. With this burden of proof upon the defendant, evidence which creates only a mere doubt, or a reasonable doubt of his sanity, is insufficient to justify an acquittal; the jury must be satisfied by fairly preponderating evidence; but it is error to instruct that the fact of insanity when the crime was committed must be clearly proved.</p> <p>4. Such instruction is reversible error, especially in a capital case, even though in another part of the charge the trial judge gave substantially correct instructions as to the measure of proof required. In such a case, it is enough to know that the jury may have been misled by the erroneous instruction on a point vital to the defence set up.</p> <p>5. Where witnesses have testified to facts affording an opportunity to them to acquire a knowledge of the mental condition of the defendant, at or near the time of the commission of the crime charged, and afterward, it is error to refuse offers to prove by them their opinions whether the defendant was sane or insane at that time, and so remained.</p>