in jurisdictions where an insane irresistible impulse is recognized as a defense.18 § 120. Insane irresistible impulse. Whether or not an insane irresistible impulse to do an act exempts one from responsibility, when he has the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong, and does know, when he does the act, that it is wrong, is a question upon which the courts do not agree.' 19 Many of the courts refuse to recognize this condition of the mind as a ground of exemption, but limit the test to the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong as to the particular act, and hold that a man who has such capacity is fully responsible, though he was impelled to do the act by an uncontrollable or irresistible impulse which he could not resist.20 But homicide. If a man insanely believes that he has a command from the Almighty to kill, it is difficult to understand how such a man can know that it is wrong for him to do it. A man may have some other insane delusion, which would be quite consistent with a knowledge that such an act is wrong, such as that he had received an injury, and he might kill in revenge for it, knowing that it would be wrong. Guiteau's Case, 10 Fed. 161. 18 Hankins v. State, 133 Ark. 38, 201 S. W. 832, L. R. A. 1918 D 784; State v. Windsor, 5 Harr. 512 (5 Del.); People v. Lowhone, 292 Ill. 32, 126 N. E. 620; s. c., 296 Ill. 391, 129 N. E. 781. And see § 120, infra. 19 See Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. 577, 2 So. 854, 60 Am. Rep. 193; Hankins v. State, 133 Ark. 38, 201 S. W. 832, L. R. A. 1918 D 784; and State v. Lewis, 20 Nev. 333, 22 Pac. 241, reviewing the authorities, and the other cases cited in the following notes. This character of insanity is variously styled moral, or emotional, or impulsive, or paroxysmal insanity. Hall v. State, 78 Fla. 420, 83 So. 513; Cochran v. State, 65 Fla. 91, 61 So. 187; Smith v. State, 95 Miss. 786, 49 So. 945, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 461, Ann. Cas. 1912 A 23; Cunningham v. State, 56 Miss. 269, 21 Am. Rep. 360; Schwartz v. State, 65 Neb. 196, 91 N. W. 190; State v. Terry, 173 N. C. 761, 92 S. E. 154; State v. Potts, 100 N. C. 458, 6 S. E. 657; State v. Levelle, 34 S. C. 120, 13 S. E. 319, 27 Am. St. Rep. 799. 20 California. People v. Morisawa, 180 Cal. 148, 179 Pac. 888; People v. Methever, 132 Cal. 326, 64 Pac. 481; People v. Owens, 123 Cal. 482, 56 Pac. 251; People v. Hubert, 119 Cal. 216, 51 Pac. 329, 63 Am. St. Rep. 72; People v. Hoin, 62 Cal. 120, 45 Am. Rep. 651. Florida. Hall v. State, 78 Fla. 420, 83 So. 513; Cochran v. State, 65 Fla. 91, 61 So. 187; Davis v. State, 44 Fla. 32, 32 So. 822. Kansas. State v. O'Neil, 51 Kan. 651, 33 Pac. 287, 24 L. R. A. 555; State v. Mowry, 37 Kan. 369, 15 Pac. 282. Maine. State v. Knight, 95 Me. 467, 50 Atl. 276, 55 L. R. A. 373; State v. Lawrence, 57 Me. 574. Maryland. Spencer V. State, 69 Md. 28, 13 Atl. 809. even under this rule an uncontrollable impulse springing from mental disease existing to so high a degree that for the time it overrules the reason, judgment and conscience, is an excuse, since under such circumstances it is utterly impossible for a person to distinguish between right and wrong.21 Other courts, while recognizing the right. (N. S.) 461, Ann. Cas. 1912 A 23; Cunningham v. State, 56 Miss. 269, 31 Am. Rep. 360. Missouri. State v. Riddle, 245 Mo. 451, 150 S. W. 1044, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 150, Ann. Cas. 1914 A 884; State v. Soper, 148 Mo. 217, 49 S. W. 1007; State v. Miller, 111 Mo. 542, 20 S. W. 243; State v. Pagels, 92 Mo. 300, 4 S. W. 931. Nebraska. Schwartz v. State, 65 Neb. 196, 91 N. W. 190; Hawe v. State, 11 Neb. 537, 10 N. W. 452, 38 Am. Rep. 375. Nevada. State v. Lewis, 20 Nev. 333, 22 Pac. 241. New Jersey. State v. Carrigan, N. J. L. 111 Atl. 927; aff'g 93 N. J. L. 268, 108 Atl. 315; Mackin v. State, 59 N. J. L. 495, 36 Atl. 1040; Genz v. State, 59 N. J. L. 488, 37 Atl. 69, 59 Am. St. Rep. 619. New York. People v. Schmidt, 216 N. Y. 324, 110 N. E. 945, L. R. A. 1916 D 519, Ann. Cas. 1916 A 978; People v. Taylor, 138 N. Y. 398, 34 N. E. 275; People v. Carpenter, 102 N. Y. 238, 6 N. E. 584, aff'g 38 Hun 490; Flanagan v. People, 52 N. Y. 467, 11 Am. Rep. 731; Freeman v. People, 4 Denio 9, 47 Am. Dec. 216. North Carolina. State v. Terry, 173 N. C. 761, 92 S. E. 154; State v. Cooper, 170 N. C. 719, 87 S. E. 50, 8 A. L. R. 1214; State v. Potts, 100 N. C. 458, 6 S. E. 657; State v. Brandon, 53 N. C. 463. 81, 118 Pac. 195; State v. Lauth, 46 Ore. 342, 80 Pac. 660, 114 Am. St. Rep. 873. South Carolina. State v. Levelle, 34 S. C. 120, 13 S. E. 319, 27 Am. St. Rep. 799; State v. Alexander, 30 S. C. 74, 8 S. E. 440, 14 Am. St. Rep. 879; State v. Bundy, 24 S. C. 439, 58 Am. Rep. 263. Tennessee. Wilcox V. State, 94 Tenn. 106, 28 S. W. 312. Texas. Carter v. State, 12 Tex. 500, 62 Am. Dec. 539; Kirby v. State, 68 Tex. Cr. 63, 150 S. W. 455; Roberts v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. 580, 150 S. W. 627; Thomas v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. 293, 116 S. W. 600; Cannon v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. 467, 56 S. W. 351; Leache v. State, 22 Tex. App. 279, 3 S. W. 539, 58 Am. Rep. 638; Williams v. State, 7 Tex. App. 163. Compare Zimmerman v. State, 85 Tex. Cr. 630, 215 S. W. 101. Washington. State v. Craig, 52 Wash. 66, 100 Pac. 167. West Virginia. State v. Cook, 69 W. Va. 717, 72 S. E. 1025; State v. Harrison, 36 W. Va. 729, 15 S. E. 982, 18 L. R. A. 224. Wisconsin. Aborn v. State, 143 Wis. 249, 126 N. W. 737, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 966, reviewing and distinguishing earlier Wisconsin cases. England. Reg. v. Stokes, 3 Car. & K. 185; McNaghten's Case, 10 Clark & F. 200, 1 Car. & K. 130, 8 Scott N. R. 595; Reg. v. Barton, 3 Cox C. C. 275; Reg. v. Haynes, 1 Fost. & F. 666. and wrong test so far as it goes, 22 hold that it is not the sole test; that, to render a person criminally responsible, he must, in addition to being able to know right from wrong, be capable of exercising the power to choose between them, and that a man is not responsible for an act done under and solely by reason of an insane and irresistible impulse, though he may have known that it was wrong.23 Ann. Cas. 1912 A 23; Cunningham v. State, 56 Miss. 269, 21 Am. Rep. 360. And see State v. Nixon, 32 Kan. 205, 4 Pac. 159. When it overrides the reason and judgment, obliterates the sense of right as to the act done, and deprives the accused of the power to choose between right and wrong. State v. Harrison, 36 W. Va. 729, 15 S. E. 982, 18 L. R. A. 224. 22 See § 117, supra. 23 Alabama. Mizell v. State, 184 Ala. 16, 63 So. 1000; Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. 577, 2 So. 854, 60 Am. Rep. 193. Arkansas. Woodall v. State, Ark., 231 S. W. 186; Hankins v. State, 133 Ark. 38, 201 S. W. 832, L. R. A. 1918 D 784; Diggs v. State, 126 Ark. 455, 190 S. W. 448; Bell v. State, 120 Ark. 530, 180 S. W. 186; Green v. State, 64 Ark. 523, 43 S. W. 973; Bolling v. State, 54 Ark. 588, 16 S. W. 658; Williams v. State, 50 Ark. 511, 9 S. W. 5. Colorado. Ryan v. People, 60 Colo. 425, 153 Pac. 756, L. R. A. 1917 F 646, Ann. Cas. 1917 C 605. Connecticut. State v. Saxon, 87 Conn. 5, 86 Atl. 590; State v. Johnson, 40 Conn. 136. Delaware. State V. Windsor, 5 Harr. 512; State v. Reidell, 9 Houst. 470, 14 Atl. 550; State v. Jack, 4 Pennew. 470, 58 Atl. 833. Georgia. Flanagan v. State, 103 Ga. 619, 30 S. E. 550. Illinois. The "unsoundness of mind or affection of insanity must be of such a degree as to create an un controllable impulse to do the act charged, by overriding the reason and judgment, and obliterating the sense of right and wrong as to the particular act done, and depriving the accused of the power of choosing between them." Lilly v. People, 148 Ill. 467, 36 N. E. 95; Hornish v. People, 142 Ill. 620, 32 N. E. 677, 18 L. R. A. 237; Dacey v. People, 116 Ill. 555, 6 N. E. 165; Hopps v. People, 31 Ill. 391, 83 Am. Dec. 231. And see People v. Penman, 271 Ill. 82, 110 N. E. 894. In cases of partial insanity of the type known as paranoia, the mere ability to distinguish right from wrong is not the correct test, but the accused must be capable of knowing right from wrong as to the particular act, and must be capable of exercising the power to choose between them and though he may be capable of distinguishing right from wrong as to a particular act, he is not responsible if he is impelled to do it by an irresistible impulse. People v. Lowhone, 292 Ill. 32, 126 N. E. 620; s. c., 296 Ill. 391, 129 N. E. 781. And see People v. Geary, 298 Ill. 236, 131 N. E. 652. Indiana. Morgan v. State, Ind. 130 N. E. 528; Plake v. State, 121 Ind. 433, 23 N. E. 273, 16 Am. St. Rep. 408; Bradley v. State, 31 Ind. 492; Stevens v. State, 31 Ind. 485, 99 Am. Dec. 634. Iowa. State v. McCullough, 114 Iowa 532, 87 N. W. 503, 55 L. R. A. 378, 89 Am. St. Rep. 382; State v. Felter, 25 Iowa 67. Kentucky. Hall v. Com., 155 Ky. In order that a person may be exempt on the ground of irresistible 541, 159 S. W. 1155; Thompson v. Com., 155 Ky. 333, 159 S. W. 829; Abbott v. Com., 107 Ky. 624, 55 S. W. 196; Montgomery v. Com., 88 Ky. 509, 11 S. W. 475; Shannahan v. Com., 8 Bush 463, 8 Am. Rep. 465; Smith v. Com., 1 Duv. 224; Scott v. Com., 4 Metc. 227, 83 Am. Dec. 461. Louisiana. State v. Lyons, 113 La. 959, 37 So. 890. Massachusetts. Com. v. Cooper, 219 Mass. 1, 106 N. E. 545; Com. v. Gilbert, 165 Mass. 45, 42 N. E. 336; Com. v. Rogers, 7 Metc. 500, 41 Am. Dec. 458. Michigan. People v. Quimby, 134 Mich. 625, 96 N. W. 1061; People v. Durfee, 62 Mich. 487, 29 N. W. 109. Montana. State v. Crowe, 39 Mont. 174, 102 Pac. 579, 18 Ann. Cas. 643; State v. Keerl, 29 Mont. 508, 75 Pac. 362, 101 Am. St. Rep. 579. And see State v. Colbert, 58 Mont. 584, 194 Pac. 145. New Hampshire. State v. Jones, 50 N. H. 369, 9 Am. Rep. 242; State v. Pike, 49 N. H. 399, 6 Am. Rep. 533. Ohio. Blackburn v. State, 23 Ohio St. 146. Pennsylvania. Com. v. De Marzo, 223 Pa. 573, 72 Atl. 893; Com. v. Hallowell, 223 Pa. 494, 72 Atl. 845; Com. v. Barner, 199 Pa. 335, 49 Atl. 60; Com. v. Wireback, 190 Pa. St. 138, 42 Atl. 542, 70 Am. St. Rep. 625; Taylor v. Com., 109 Pa. St. 262; Coyle v. Com., 100 Pa. St. 573, 45 Am. Rep. 397; Com. v. Mosler, 4 Pa. St. 264. Vermont. State v. Kelsie, 93 Vt. 450, 108 Atl. 391; Rogers v. State, 77 Vt. 454, 61 Atl. 489; Doherty v. State, 73 Vt. 380, 50 Atl. 1113. And see State v. Kelley, 74 Vt. 278, 52 Atl. 434. Virginia. Thurman v. Com., 107 Va. 912, 60 S. E. 99; Dejarnette v. Com., 75 Va. 867. Wyoming. Flanders v. State, 24 Wyo. 81, 156 Pac. 39, 1121. In Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. 577, 2 So. 854, 60 Am. Rep. 193, the court said: "We think that the inquiries to be submitted to the jury, in every criminal trial where the defense of insanity is interposed are these: 1. Was the defendant, at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, as a matter of fact, afflicted with a disease of the mind, so as to be either idiotic or otherwise insane? 2. If such be the case, did he know right from wrong, as applied to the particular act in question? If he did not have such knowledge, he is not legally responsible. 3. If he did have such knowledge, he may nevertheless not be legally responsible if the two following conditions occur: (1) If, by reason of the duress of such mental disease, he had so far lost the power to choose between the right and wrong, and to avoid doing the act in question, as that his free agency was at the time destroyed; (2) and if, at the same time, the alleged crime was so connected with such mental disease, in the relation of cause and effect as to have been the product of it solely." And see Porter v. State, 140 Ala. 87, 37 So. 81; Green v. State, 64 Ark. 523, 43 S. W. 973; State v. Lyons, 113 La. 959, 37 So. 890. In Com. v. Mosler, 4 Pa. St. 264, it was said by Chief Justice Gibson: "There may be an unseen ligament pressing on the mind, drawing it to consequences which it sees, but cannot avoid, and placing it under coercion, which, while its results are clearly perceived, is incapable of resistance. The doctrine which acknowledges this mania is dangerous in its relations, and can be recognized only in the clearest cases. It ought to be shown impulse, in any case, the impulse must be the result of disease of the mind,24 and the act must have been the product of the disease solely.25 Mere frenzy, excitement, or ungovernable passion, resulting from motives of hatred, anger, or the like, is not insanity, and is not an excuse for crime in any jurisdiction.26 The impulse must also be irresistible, or, in other words, the disease must exist to such an extent as to subjugate the intellect, and render it impossible for the person to do otherwise than yield thereto,27 and it must be an impulse to commit the particular offense with which the defendant is charged.28 § 121. Moral and emotional insanity. Whenever irresistible impulse is relied upon as a defense, care must be taken to distinguish between insane irresistible impulse-that is, irresistible impulse resulting from disease of the mind-and mere moral perversion and passion. As a rule neither so called moral 29 nor emotional in * * to have been habitual, or at least to have evinced itself in more than a single instance. To establish it as a justification in any particular instance it is necessary either to show by clear proof its contemporaneous existence, evidenced by present circumstances, or the existence of an habitual tendency developed in previous cases, becoming in itself a second nature." This was approved in Com. v. Hillman, 189 Pa. St. 548, 42 Atl. 196, 69 Am. St. Rep. 827, and Coyle v. Com., 100 Pa. St. 573, 45 Am. Rep. 397. Compare Scott v. Com., 4 Metc. (Ky.) 227, 83 Am. Dec. 461, where it was held that the disease need not have manifested itself in former acts of like character. 24 Porter v. State, 140 Ala. 87, 37 So. 81; Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. 577, 2 So. 854, 60 Am. Rep. 193; Hankins v. State, 133 Ark. 38, 201 S. W. 832, L. R. A. 1918 D 784; Bolling v. State, 54 Ark. 588, 16 S. W. 658. 25 Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. 577, 2 So. 854, 60 Am. Rep. 193; Hankins v. State, 133 Ark. 38, 201 S. W. 832, L. R. A. 1918 D 784; Diggs v. State, 126 Ark. 455, 190 S. W. 448; Bell v. State, 120 Ark. 530, 180 S. W. 186; Green v. State, 64 Ark. 523, 43 S. W. 973; State v. Hockett, 70 Iowa 442, 30 N. W. 742; State v. Stickley, 41 Iowa 232. 26 See § 121, infra. 27 Scott v. Com., 4 Metc. (Ky.) 227, 83 Am. Dec. 461; Com. v. Wireback, 190 Pa. St. 138, 42 Atl. 542, 70 Am. St. Rep. 625; Taylor v. Com., 109 Pa. St. 262. 28 The fact that a person has an irresistible impulse to commit robbery will not excuse him for a homicide committed to avoid apprehension and possible conviction for the robbery. State v. Mewhinney, 43 Utah 135, 134 Pac. 632, L. R. A. 1916 D 590, Ann. Cas. 1916 C 537. 29 Alabama. Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. 577, 2 So. 854, 60 Am. Rep. 193; Boswell v. State, 63 Ala. 307, 35 Am. Rep. 20. Arkansas. Bell v. State, 120 Ark. 530, 180 S. W. 186; Green v. State, 64 Ark. 523, 43 S. W. 973. California. People v. Kerrigan, 73 Cal. 222, 14 Pac. 849. Florida. Hall v. State, 78 Fla. 420, 83 So. 513; Cochran v. State, 65 Fla. 91, 61 So. 187. |