Cunningham v. State

Citations

• 56 Miss. 269

Syllabus

<p>1. Mtjbtcer. Insanity. Reasonable doubt.</p> <p>Where the defenfie to a charge of murder is insanity, if the evidence induces in the minds of the jury the belief that the defence is probably true, they cannot convict.</p> <p>2. Same. Burden of proof. Presumption. Doubt.</p> <p>Every man is presumed to be sane; and in the absence of testimony engendering a reasonable doubt of sanity, no evidence on the subject need be offered. But whenever the question of sanity is raised and put in issue by such facts proved on either side as engender such doubt, it devolves on the State to remove it, and establish the sanity of the prisoner to the satisfaction of the jury, beyond all reasonable doubt arising out of all the evidence in the case.</p> <p>3. Same. Degree of insanity.</p> <p>To excuse a crime on the ground of insanity, the degree of insanity must be such as to disqualify the accused for a proper perception of the difference between right and wrong.</p> <p>4. Instructions. Conflicting.</p> <p>The giving of conflicting instructions is erroneous.</p> <p>6. Insanity. Delusion.</p> <p>Where the delusion of a party is such that he has a real and firm belief of the existence of a fact which is wholly imaginary, and under that insane belief he has done an act which would be justifiable if such fact existed, he is not responsible for such act.</p> <p>6. Same. Mental disease. Uncontrollable impulse.</p> <p>A person is not punishable for an act committed under an uncontrollable impulse springing from mental disease, existing to so high a degree that for the time it overwhelms reason, judgment, and conscience.</p> <p>7. Same. Lesion of the will. Emotional insanity.</p> <p>A person is responsible for an act committed under a mental condition in which the mind, perfectly perceiving the true relations of the party, and recognizing all the obligations thereby imposed, is unable to control the will.</p>