Defendant asserts as a defense that he was insane at the time of the commission of the crimes charged in thе bills of indictment and at the time of trial. He contends that the trial court erred in finding him competent to stand trial, and thаt it again erred in failing to grant his motion for nonsuit on the ground of insanity.
Incapacity to stand trial and insanity as a defense to a criminal prosecution are two different concepts. Whether a defendant is competent to stand trial depends on his mental condition at the time of trial. “ Tn determining a defendant’s capacity
*295
tо stand trial, the test is whether he has the capacity to comprehend his position, to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to conduct his defense in a rational manner, and to coоperate with his counsel to the end that any available defense may be interposed.’ ”
State v. Jones,
Dr. Eugene V. Maynard, an expert psychiatrist who treated defendant at Cherry Hospital, testified about defendant’s mental condition at the hearing on his competency to stand trial, and again during the trial as a witness for defendant. He stated that in his opinion defendant had known the difference between right and wrong at the time of the robbery on 29 December 1972; that when defendant was admitted to Cherry Hospital on February 6, he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, a psychotic condition, possibly brought on by the shock of being arrested and jailed; that a drug known as Hаldol had been prescribed for defendant at Cherry Hospital; that the drug had brought about a remission in defendant’s рsychotic condition; and that defendant was now competent to stand trial. In addition to the testimony of Dr. Maynаrd, Dallas M. Hall and Jack Horrell, the two eyewitnesses to the crime, testified that defendant did not appeаr to be insane at the time of the robbery. This testimony clearly constitutes competent and substantial evidence in support of the trial court’s finding that defendant was competent for trial and its denial of defendant’s motiоn for non-suit. The court did not err in either of these rulings.
Defendant objects to several of the court’s rulings on the admissiоn and exclusion of evidence. First, he contends that the court should not have admitted into evidence the five photographs shown to Hall and Horrell, one of which they identified as a photograph of defendant. This contention is without merit.
*296
“A witness may use a . . . photograph ... to illustrate his testimony and make it more intelligible to the court and jury.” 1 Stansbury, N. C. Evidence (Brandis rev.), § 34, at 93-94;
accord, State v. Johnson,
Defendant also argues that the court erred in failing to permit him to cross-examine Dr. Maynard, who was called as a defense witness but gave testimony that was damaging to defendant. The trial judge may in his discretion allow a party to cross-examine his own witness,
State v. Tilley,
Several of defendant’s exceptions relate to the court’s charge to the jury. One of these has to do with the instructions оn the burden of proof. There is no set formula that must be used in charging on the burden of proof, and the instructions given in this сase clearly indicated to the jury that the State must prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and were entirely proper.
State v. Glatly,
The court instructed the jury accurately on defendant’s failure to testify.
State v. McNeill,
Defendant contends that the trial judge summarized Dr. Maynard’s testimony too briefly. However, the court’s discussion of the evidence given by Dr. Maynard takes up 1% pages of the record and mentions the most important parts of his testimony. It is not necessаry and indeed it would be impossible for the judge to restate everything a witness has said. The court must of necessity give thе witness’s testimony in a shortened, summarized form.
Steelman v. Benfield,
*297
Defendant asserts that the court failed to instruct the jury on “felonious intent,” one'of the elements of the crime of armed robbery. “An essential element in robbery cases ‘is a “felonious taking,”
i.e.,
a taking with the felonious intent on the part of the taker to deprive the owner of his property permanently and to convert it to the use of the taker.’ ”
State v. Mundy,
The court properly instructed the jury on the issue of insanity.
State v. Lamm,
Defendant has received a fair trial free from any prejudicial error.
No error.