The defendant presents for consideration twenty assignments of error based on thirty-nine exceptions. Obviously we cannot discuss them seriatim.
The first assignment of error is to the ruling of his Honor that the confession of the defendant was voluntary. A preliminary examination of Sheriff Shore was conducted to determine whether or not the confеssion made to him by the defendant, which was reduced to writing, read to the defendant and signed by him, was made voluntarily. The court found as a fact that any statement made by defendant to the witness was free and voluntary. The competency of a confession is a preliminary question for the trial court, and the court’s ruling will not be disturbed, if supported by any competent evidence. See S. v. Manning,
No error has been made to appear in the admission of the confession of the defendant in evidence.
The defendant assigns as error his Honor’s charge, instructing the jury it could return one of two verdicts, as it found the facts to be, from all the evidence — guilty as сharged in the bill of indictment or not guilty. The pertinent part of C. S., sec. 4639, reads as follows: “On the trial of any person for rape, or any felony whatsoever, when the crime charged includes an assault against the person, it is lawful for the jury to acquit of the felony and find a verdict of guilty of assault against the person indicted if the еvidence warrants such finding.” C. S., sec. 4640, reads as follows: “Upon the trial of any indictment the prisoner may be convicted of the crime charged therein or of a less degree of the same crime, or of an attempt to commit the crime so charged, or of an attempt to commit a less degree of the same crime.” The defendant is relying on the above statutes and the case of S. v. Williams,
In view of the evidence adduced at the trial below, we think the decision of this Court in S. v. Jackson,
It is contended tbat tbe charge was erroneous and misleading on tbe affirmative defenses of insanity and intoxication. Tbe defendant contends tbat оn tbe question of insanity tbe court should have instructed tbe jury “Tbat if they found from tbe evidence tbat by reason of a diseased mind, tbe defendant bad lost tbe power to control or govern bis actions, then in tbat event it would be their duty to acquit him.” There was some evidence to tbe effect tbat defendant bad a venereal disease and tbat some years prior to tbe time of tbe trial below be bad received medical treatment for same and thereafter served an enlistment of some six months in a C.C.C. Camp. An examination of tbe testimony discloses tbat in tbe trial below tbe defendant offered many witnesses in an effort to show tbat tbe defendant was weak minded and bad always been so. His mother testified be was three years old before be could walk, tbat be did not develop properly mentally or physically, and tbat be did not have much sense. Tbe pertinent part of tbe charge on tbe plea of insanity is as follows: “Gentlemen of tbe Jury, when tbe plea of insanity is set up by a person charged with tbe commission of a crime, tbe burden is on tbe person setting up tbat defense, tbat is, as in this case, tbe defendant, Sam Hairston, to show to tbe Jury, not by tbe greater weight of evidence or not beyond a reasonable doubt, “but merely to your reasonable satisfaction, tbat be was insane. (Insаnity, Gentlemen of tbe Jury, means such a perverted and deranged condition of tbe mental and moral faculties as to render a person incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong, or not conscious at tbe time of tbe nature of tbe act which be is committing.) Also, Gentlemen of tbe Jury, tbe Court instructs you tbat while tbe term Insanity’ is not striсtly speaking a legal term, it can be defined legally as a manifestation of disease of tbe brain characterized by a general or partial derangement of one or more faculties of tbe mind, and in wbicb, while consciousness is not abolished, mental freedom is perverted, weakened or destroyed, to suсh an extent as to render a person incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong or not conscious at tbe time of tbe nature of tbe act be is committing. (In other words, Gentlemen of tbe Jury, to excuse one from criminal responsibility, be must be insane.) Tbe defendant must be in such a state of mind from mental disease as to not know tbе nature and quality of tbe act be was committing, or if be did know it, tbat be did not know be was doing what was wrong. No other degree of insanity will excuse a person from liability or responsibility. (Tbe
To establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be proven to the satisfaction of the jury that at the time of the commission of the act the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from a diseased mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know, that he did not know he was doing wrong. Likewise, “insanity” includes a mental condition resulting from low mentality or a weak mind which makes the possessor thereof incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong or of comprehending the nature and consequence of his act. In 14 R. C. L., sec. 55, page 600, we find the test of legal responsibility, when the plea of insanity is interposed, to be as follows: “The prevailing view is apparently to the effect that
■ The defendant also excepts to the following part of his Honor’s charge on his plea of drunkenness : “The Court instructs you that if the defendant in this case was under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drinks to such an extent that his normal functions of body and mind were so interfered with- — that is, if he was in suсh condition that he could not form an intent to commit rape — that is, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that he did commit rape — that is, if he did not know what he was doing and what he was about and what he was trying to do; if he was so affected by the liquor or intoxicating drink that he could not form an intent, then he could not be guilty of the charge as contained in this bill of indictment, and it would be your duty to return a verdict of 'not guilty.’ Now, Gentlemen of the Jury, the Court also instructs you that if a man gets several drinks of liquor, or two or three drinks of liquor,
On tbe plea of drunkenness as a defense, tbe burden is on tbe defendant to satisfy tbe jury tbat at tbe time of tbe commission of a crime be was intоxicated to sucb an extent tbat be did not know wbat be was doing, or trying to do, and was incapable of forming a criminal intent. However, if a defendant drinks liquor or other intoxicants for tbe purpose of giving bim nerve and courage to commit a crime, tben sucb voluntary drunkenness would not be an excuse for a crime committed whilе thus intoxicated. S. v. Adams,
We do not think tbe charge оn tbe plea of insanity and drunkenness prejudicial to tbe defendant, but, on tbe contrary, tbat tbe charge fairly presented to tbe jury tbe defendant’s contentions and defined bis rights in respect thereto in substantial accord with tbe requisites of tbe law. No prayer for instruction was tendered by tbe defendant and none requested in rеsponse to an inquiry by tbe court if any further instructions were desired.
When tbe charge of tbe court is considered contextually, tbe remaining assignments of error thereto do not show reversible error. As stated in S. v. Cooper, supra; “Tbe charge of tbe court must be considered as a whole, in tbe same connected way as given to tbe jury, and upon tbe presumption tbat tbe jury did npt overlook any portion of it. If, when so construed, it presents tbe law fairly and correctly to tbe jury, there is no ground for reversing tbe judgment, though some of tbe expressions, when standing alone, may be regarded as erroneous. Kornegay v. R. R.,
The defendant has been convicted of a heinous crime. He has been represented by able and painstaking counsel. His defenses were presented for the consideration of the jury, and the jury, in the light of all the evidence, returned a verdict of guilty as charged in the bill of indictment. In the trial below, we find
No error.