People v. Blake (1884) · DecisionDepot

People v. Blake

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court May 27, 1884 No. No. 10,941Published

Before: Thornton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that evidence of a defendant's mental impairment resulting from chronic alcoholism is admissible to determine whether the defendant possessed the specific intent required to commit the crime of forgery.

Issues

Whether evidence of insanity or mental incapacity caused by chronic alcoholism is admissible in a forgery trial to negate the element of criminal intent.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Insanity produced by protracted over-indulgence in intoxicating liquors may be held to be an excuse for crime, and if such is the offer of the defendant the court below erred in its ruling.”

“The criminality of the defendant under this statute depends upon his mental condition at the time he committed the offense charged. If he was unable or incapable of forming such intent, he cannot be held guilty.”

Synopsis

CRIMINAL Law—Forgery—Drunkenness as a Defense.—In a prosecution for forgery, evidence is admissible, on the question of intent, to show that in consequence of protracted intemperance defendant’s mental faculties had been impaired to such an extent as to deprive him of the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong, and that he did not know what he was doing at the time of the commission of the act.

Thornton, J. The defendant was accused by information of the forgery of a promissory note. .The specific averments were that defendant “did feloniously, wilfully, and- falsely make, utter, and pass to one John Robinson, a certain false, forged, and counterfeit note, as true and genuine,” etc. The defendant was tried and convicted.

It is urged that the court on the trial committed errors prejudicial to defendant, to which our attention is called on this appeal.

The first point made is the ruling of the court on an offer made on behalf of defendant. An extract from the bill of exceptions will best show the point made: —

“ L..B. Watthall duly sworn: —

“Defendant—I understand from the ruling of the court that I am not allowed to go back of this transaction.

“ Court—I shall certainly not allow you to prove the general character and general habits prior to this act as to his drunkenness.

“ Defendant—So that we may get ourselves on record properly, defendant offers to prove these facts,' the court may deny the testimony, and I take my exceptions at this time. If the court is satisfied, then it is not necessary to call any more witnesses. The defendant proposes to prove this: That the defendant has for twenty years, or from fifteen to twenty years, -been a strong drinker. That he is a man who when drunk acts unconsciously, and that from the excessive use of alcohol he is affected with chronic alcoholism, inebriate—in other words, dipsomania. And we propose to prove by witnesses —

“ Court—In other words, you offer to prove insanity?

“Defendant—That he is insane from confirmed and excessive use of alcohol. We propose to prove that he is affected with dipsomania, and that he is arrived at that stage, whenever he is under the influence of liquor, that he is unable to tell what he is doing; that he is unable to distinguish right from wrong, and we will supplement this by proving that, at the time he did the act, he was under the influence of liquor.”

The court refused to allow this testimony, to which defendant reserved an exception.

The offer might have been put with more clearness, but we think that by its fair interpretation it was an offer to show that the defendant was afflicted with dipsomania; that from pro[277]

People v. Blake

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief