Reference

Cited By

3 cases

Status

Published

Syllabus

Evidence — Witnesses—Homicide — Insanity — Direct examination — Gross-examination—Jurors—Examination on voir dire. 1. At the trial of an indictment for murder, a question asked defendant’s witness under direct examination: “Did you or did you not at any time observe a change of conduct on tbe part of tbis defendant in regards to bis mentality,” was leading, and an objection thereto was properly sustained. 2. In such case, tbe court made no error in refusing to permit defendant’s expert witness to express bis opinion as to tbe defendant's insanity based on tbe evidence which he had heard in court, where such witness had previously stated his opinion as based upon his examination of the defendant, or in refusing to permit an expert witness testifying for defendant to state whether defendant was mentally responsible when he was suffering from an insane delusion, or to allow a lay-witness who had known defendant for eight or nine years and who described certain conduct of defendant, to state whether he considered that a rational or an irrational act. 3. In such case, where defendant’s witness, having testified as to defendant’s reputation as a law-abiding citizen, was asked on cross-examination: “Do you know whether he (defendant) killed a man or not,” and replied, “I don’t know,” it was not error to refuse to strike out the question and answer. 4. In such case, the court made no error in refusing to permit a juror examined on his voir dire to be questioned as to whether he had any conscientious scruples against insanity as a defense in a murder trial. Criminal law — Murder—Insanity—Charge to jury — Correct instructions. 5. At the trial on an indictment for murder, it appeared that defendant met deceased in a street; that defendant who had a shoe box under his arm, walked up to deceased, pulled a pistol from the box, shot deceased twice and then turned and started to run, when he fired a third shot. The shots killed deceased. The Commonwealth did not prove a motive for the killing. The defense was that defendant was insane when he fired the shots, and evidence was offered that he was the subject of insane delusions that people were trying to poison him and that his wife had been unfaithful to him. The trial, judge charged the jury to the efEect that if by reason of insanity the defendant did not know the difference between right and wrong, that his mind was so diseased in relation to these delusions that there was an irresistible, overwhelming force driving him on and impelling him to commit the crime, he was entitled to an acquittal, but that if they, should not so find, then they should take into consideration the circumstances of the shooting with a view to determining whether defendant was guilty and the degree of guilt, if any. The jury found a verdict of guilty of murder of the second degree, upon which sentence was passed. Held, no error.