State v. Craig
Citations
- 52 Wash. 66
- 100 P. 167
- 1909 Wash. LEXIS 1076
Syllabus
<p>Appeal — Dismissal—Time fob Motion. A motion to dismiss an appeal because of imperfections in the record comes too late, where after an oral argument, with the records before him, respondent’s counsel had asked leave to file a brief and stipulated that a reply brief could be filed, and in his brief submitted the motion to dismiss.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Defenses—Insanity—Instructions—Contradictory and Misleading Instructions — Partial Insanity. Upon the defense of insanity, an instruction is contradictory and misleading where the jury is told that the defendant would not be accountable for his crime if he was suffering from mental disease so complete that every faculty and power of his mind was affected by it, and that in consequence he was not capable of a single sound, healthy mental action, although other instructions favorable to the defendant were given; since it denies to him the defense of partial insanity.</p> <p>Same — Defense of Insanity — Instructions. The jury should be instructed that the test .of defendant’s sanity is whether he had sufficient capacity at the time to distinguish between right and wrong with reference to the act charged.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Evidence—Insanity—Nonexpert Opinion. The testimony of nonexpert witnesses is competent to show insanity.</p> <p>Same — Defense of Insanity — Instructions. Upon the defense of insanity, the power to choose between right and wrong being a relative question of fact to be determined by the jury, any instruction that invites the jury to go further than to answer the question, Had the accused sufficient capacity at the time to distinguish between right and wrong with reference to the act committed? or that leads the jury into unknown paths, is prejudicially erroneous, even though involved instructions may be regarded as more favorable to the accused than those requested; since he was non compos mentis and entitled to the protection of the law if he did not have the mental power to choose between right
Judges: Chadwick
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
10 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Commonwealth v. WoodhouseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1960-09-26· cited 131×
- State v. CollinsWashington Supreme Court· 1957-08-22· cited 94×
- State v. SearcyIdaho Supreme Court· 1990-09-05· cited 64×
- State v. PutzellWashington Supreme Court· 1952-03-20· cited 36×
- State v. OdellWashington Supreme Court· 1951-02-13· cited 28×
- State v. HarrisWashington Supreme Court· 1913-06-10· cited 14×
- Rust v. Washington Tool & Hardware Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1918-04-27· cited 13×
- State v. ForsythWashington Supreme Court· 1924-12-09· cited 10×
- State v. ShawWashington Supreme Court· 1913-09-09· cited 10×
- State v. ThomasCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1973-03-05· cited 6×
Cites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Guiteau's CaseS.D. New York· 1882-07-01· cited 41×
- In re the Estate of GorkowWashington Supreme Court· 1899-02-18· cited 35×
- State v. ClarkWashington Supreme Court· 1904-04-04· cited 27×
- Higgins v. NetheryWashington Supreme Court· 1902-10-23· cited 13×
- Clum v. BarkleyWashington Supreme Court· 1898-10-21· cited 3×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.