State v. Johnson

Citations

• 92 Kan. 441
• 140 P. 839
• 1914 Kan. LEXIS 251

Syllabus

<p>syllabus by the court.</p> <p>1. Murder — Information Contains Essential Elements of Murder in First Degree. An information which, instead of following some approved form, charged that the defendant feloniously, willfully, deliberately, premeditatedly and with malice aforethought made an assault upon the deceased with intent feloniously, willfully, deliberately, premeditatedly and with malice aforethought to kill and murder him, and did then and there with a loaded gun feloniously, willfully, premeditatedly and with malice aforethought shoot and inflict on him a mortal wound of which he instantly died — is held to contain all the essential elements of murder in the first degree, including deliberation.</p> <p>2. Murder — Trial—Instructions Relating to Defense of Insanity Not Prejudicial. The sole defense was insanity, and the defendant introduced the evidence of a. large number of witnesses on that subject. After correctly charging as to the burden and degree of proof, the presumptions of innocence, sanity and the natural consequences of one’s acts, the court instructed:</p> <p>“It devolves upon the defendant, therefore, in the first instance, to raise the question. But a defendant in a criminal case is not required to prove his insanity by a preponderance of the evidence in order to avail himself of that defense, but merely to create a reasonable doubt on this point, whereupon the burden of proving his sanity falls upon the state. And if upon the whole of the evidence introduced on the trial, together with all the legal presumptions applicable to the case under the evidence, th,ere should be a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was at the time of the shooting sane, or insane; with respect to the particular act charged against him, he must be acquitted.”</p> <p>Held, that in view of the correctness of other instructions and the fact that the defendant had introduced much evidence touching his claimed insanity no substantial prejudice resulted from the u