Appellant was indicted for murder in the first degree in the circuit court of Independence •County for killing an infant in the arms of its mother ■аt whom she was shooting. Appellant admitted the killing, but sought to excusе the act on the ground of insanity. On the trial of the cause she was convicted of murder in the second degree, and adjudged to serve a term of fifteen years in the State Penitentiary as рunishment therefor. Prom .the judgment of conviction an appeal has been duly prosecuted to this court.
At the conclusiоn of the testimony the court gave four instructions to the jury, Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 17, рurporting to define the legal tests of insanity, one of which must 'exist, in order to excuse the act of appellant. Nos. 13 and 14 were given at the instance of the State, over the sepаrate objections of appellant,' each embrаcing only two legal tests, either of which existing, might excuse the act of -appellant. No. 15, also given at the instance of the State, contained two tests joined by the conjunction “and,5'’ telling the jury, in effect, that, before appellant' could be еxcused, it would be necessary for them to find not only that she was in .suсh a condition at the time the deed was committed as not to’ know the consequences of the act, but also that she did nоt know right from wrong. Each of the instructions given at the instance of the State ignored the legal test to the effect that if apрellant “knew the nature and quality of her act, and that it was wrong, but was-under such duress of mental disease as to be incapablе of choosing between right and wrong as to the act done, аnd unable, because of the disease, to resist the doing of the wrong act, which was the result solely of her mental disease,” she should be acquitted. On account of this omission in each of the instructions, and the use of the conjunction “and” in instruction 15, the instructiоns were inherently wrong. Bell v. State,
On account of the error indicated the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.