The Plea of Insanity. 



297 



from which we have quoted, thus sums up the conditions of legal re- 

 sponsibility at the time of the act: — *'First. Sufficient mental capacity 

 for ordinary reason, reflection, and judgment. Secondly. The knowl- 

 edge of right and wrong as applied to the particular act. Thirdly. 

 The power of self-control within reasonable limits. Fourthly. The 

 absence of insane delusion overpowering reason — the character and 

 strength of the false belief to be judged in each particular case and 

 not by any general definition of insane delusion, that being impossi- 

 ble." 



The question of the burden of proof in cases of alleged insanity 

 has elicited much discussion, and resulted in considerable confusion 

 and conflict in judicial opinion. 



It may be considered as quite well settled that sanity being the normal 

 and generally the actual condition of the mind, is always presumed. 

 The prosecutor may rest upon this presumption until evidence of 

 insanity is introduced for the defense. Just here comes the conflict. 

 "What degree of evidence is requisite to overcome the presumption ? 

 After the introduction of such evidence for the defense, does the bur- 

 den rest upon the prosecution to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable 

 doubt, that defendant was legally sane when he committed the act? 

 There arc several theories. 



First. That insanity as a defense, the same as what is technically 

 known as confession and avoidance, must be proved by defendant be- 

 yond a reasonable doubt; and unless such proof be furnished, the 

 case for the prosecution being otherwise proved, the jury must convict. 

 This view was taken by the late Chief Justice Hornblower, of New 

 Jersey, a man of great worth, and a jurist of distinguished ability ; 

 but it is not generally adopted. 



Secondly. That upon the issue of insanity the jury must be gov- 

 erned by the preponderance of evidence; that while the burden is on 

 defendant, he is not required to prove insanity beyond a reasonable 

 doubt. 



Thirdly. Another view which has some earnest advocates is, that on 

 the issue of insanity, the burden is on the prosecution to prove sanity 

 beyond a reasonable doubt. 



Fourthly. That upon the main issue of guilty or not guilty, the 

 burden of proof rests upon the prosecutor from the beginning to the 

 end of the trial. That to secure a conviction, it must be shown that 

 the prisoner was sane when he committed the act, and for the reason 

 that he cannot be guilty if a sane mind never assented to the act, and 

 the fact of such assent is put in issue by the plea of not guilty." 

 But, upon the particular question of insanity, the presumjHion is 



3S 



