| Show r I II I l I USE E OF DRUGS FOR SEVEN rEARS DOES NOT PROVE PROVEt t I HIS MIND UNBAlANCED f 1 II I. I Unless mess Boa Board dof of Pardons Intervenes Inter Inter- t tI J I ven venes e s Harley M n e Y YI I I J M Must 0 Die Ie t i f Holding that proof of ot use of drugs I if for seven se years yearn I Ij Lg not conclusive f evi evidence deuce dence of h Insanity sanit or m mental derangement derange derange- I ment on tho trio part port of ot the thi user a majority majority ma ma- I. I of tho supreme court yesterday f banded down an opinion sustaining the death penalty imposed I bv by tho the district I court upon Harley Barley Harlee McM e cont cony con- con y t Acted slayer of or C. C J IA I. Erickson a young I mining mining- engineer In the Romona room room- H 1 tuff mE house on the afternoon of oC October II I r G 6 H 1911 justice Justice D H. H X Strau dissents dissent s from I the the- lie prevailing opt opinion alga written by br Jus- Jus I ice J J. E. E Frick holding holding- that tho the 10 lower cr crI I I court ourt should not only have havo charges charged II I the jury as to Its duty to determine the capacity of or defendant of or knowing rl right glit ht from Wron wrong but should have charged It to determine whether or not I Ills his mental condition was as such as to enable him to exercise will power to tor I r resist wrong after distinguishing It from i rl right ht Chief Ju Justice W l. M. M McCarty I. I writes a l concurring opinion agreeing agreeIng- with Justice Jus Jus- I tice FrIck but h g giving giving- ng expression TO Borne s-ome of his opinions on technical points I 1 of or the Issues r raised raided in fn the tho appeal I I. I In view of notion action of oC the tha t I court In lc hinny rs s ca case caso o he will I 1 hive have to pa pay the tho death penalty unless i I t the thc board of or pardons grants rants him clem clem- ency The defendant has 1138 twenty dasIn days das In which to apply appl for COl a n rehearing or ot othi hi his appeal and this application will Le he made It is understood open Mc has hns already chosen shooting as the tho method of but ha has the option ot of changing chang his request If Ir he desires when called up for tor Tho crime for which Is condemned to die was tho the killing ot or Erickson when the tha mining en engineer sought to Interfere an and prevent tic sic and ond his partner Thomas Kirkpatrick Kirk Kirk- patrick from robbing Sol S. S Brown a i jewelry salesman Alleged cI At his trial s chief defense de defense de- de Cense was wag alleged Insanity it being loing contended that excessive use of drugs druga for seven years had unbalanced Jus Isla mind In the prevailing opinion the cot ft holds that there wa was but little lil e evidence of Insanity presented and what there thero was was but of or a n general and unspecific nature given by laymen lamen and others not properly qualified to give expert opinion It was wag held that tho the charge e eto to the tho Jury that It mu must t determine whether or not defendant was able to distinguish between right and wron wrong was sufficient to cover Insanity and no further Instructions on this line were necessary Justice argues that further Instructions should have been given ion lie tl-e jur Jury He contends that the Jur Jury should have e been instructed not only to determine whether the man was capable of distinguishing between right and wrong but It should nave been told to ascertain whether or not he possessed will power sufficient to tn refrain from doing doing- wrong Ho ITe held that a man mon might be rational enough to distinguish between a rightful and anda a wrongful wrong act yet et Insane Insano enough that he lie would have havo no will power to control control control con con- his acts |
