Ford v. State

Citations

• 73 Miss. 734

Syllabus

<p>1. Criminal Law. Evidence. Bwden of proof of insanity.</p> <p>Tlie burden of proof is always upon tlie state in criminal trials, and it must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the sanity of the accused at the time of the commission of the act with which he is charged, though the presumption of his sanity will warrant a conviction in the absence of rebutting evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt. Cumvmgham v. State, 56 Miss., 269, cited.</p> <p>2. Same. Temporary and habitual insanity. Lucid intervals. Presumption.</p> <p>Where the general or habitual insanity of the accused is shown on a trial for murder, the state has the burden of showing that the homicide was committed during a lucid interval; but where only-temporary insanity is shown at a time anterior to the homicide, without raising a reasonable doubt that it existed at the time of the homicide, the presumption of sanity dispenses with proof of a lucid interval. Ricketts v. Jolliff, 62 Miss., 440, cited.</p> <p>3. Insane Delusions. Distinction between right and wrong.</p> <p>It is immaterial whether the accused is sane or insane upon other subjects, if his insanity in respect to the homicide is of such a nature as to break down his capacity to distinguish between right and wrong. Grissom v. State, 62 Miss., 167, cited.</p> <p>4. Same. Uncontrollable impulse.</p> <p>It is not true that a party is not responsible for an act done under an uncontrollable impulse which is the result of insane delusions, unless the act was the direct result of mental disease of a character 'so aggravated as to overwhelm the reason, judgment and conscience. Ouwivinghamr. State, 56 Miss., 269, cited..</p>