Commonwealth v. Molten

Citations

• 230 Pa. 399
• 79 A. 638
• 1911 Pa. LEXIS 624

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Murder—Insanity—Burden of proof — Evidence—Instructions.</p> <p>1. When insanity is set up as a defense to an indictment charging the commission of a crime it becomes, under sec. 66 of the Criminal Code of March 31, 1860, P. L. 427, a distinct issue before the jury, and if in their judgment the accused ought to be acquitted because he was insane at the time he committed the act charged against him, there must be a special finding by the jury of insanity as the ground of acquittal.</p> <p>2. While the burden is upon those defending a prisoner charged with crime, to establish his insanity at the time the act was committed as a reason why he should not be held responsible for the consequences of his act, it is not necessary that his insanity should be established conclusively and beyond all reasonable doubt. It need only be established by the fair preponderance of proof.</p> <p>3. On the trial of an indictment for murder where insanity is set up as a defense, it is reversible error for the trial judge to charge as follows: “In considering the question of insanity your-first question is whether the evidence clearly establishes that the defendant was insane at the time the attack was committed.”</p> <p>4. In such a case the error is not cured by the fact that the trial judge in other parts of his charge, and in his answers to points submitted by the prisoner, correctly stated the law as to the degree of proof required to establish insanity.</p>