within the statutory period of limitations,19 and if this is not done a conviction will be reversed.50 So also it is for the state to show that the crime was committed before the indictment was found, and where it fails to do so a conviction will be reversed.51 Statutory exception. Except as to some, 52 but not all,53 matters in some jurisdictions, it is the rule that, where an exception to the statute is relied on to relieve the accusation of the bar of limitations, the burden is on the state to prove that the case comes within the exception.54 [§ 997] 5. Jurisdiction and Venue.55 The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the offense was committed within the county where the venue is laid.56 This is true, although venue is not alleged in the indictment,57 or although the judge and the jury may personally know the locus in quo to be within the county,58 but the admission of accused on arraignment that he is guilty of voluntary manslaughter when he is indicted for murder in a particular county dispenses with the necessity for proof of venue.59 Sometimes the state has the burden of proving venue in a part of a county, as where the county is divided into two judicial districts,60 or 49. Ark. Stelle v. State, 77 Ark. 441, 92 SW 530. Fla.-Weinert v. State, 35 Fla. 229, 17 S 570; Warrace v. State, 27 Fla. 362, 8 S 748; Nelson v. State, 17 Fla. 195. Ga.-Askew v. State, 3 Ga. A. 79, 59 SE 311. Ind.-Dickinson v. State, 70 Ind. 247. La.-State v. Anderson, 51 La. Ann. 1181, 25 S 990. Miss. Hatton v. State, 92 Miss. 651, 655, 46 S 708 [quot Cyc]. Mo.-State v. Schuerman, 70 Mo. A. 518. N. C.-State v. Carpenter, 74 N. C. 230. S. C.-State v. Waters, 32 S. C. L. 59. Tex.-Manning v. State, 35 Tex. 723; Jackson v. State, 34 Tex. 136; Duncan v. State, (Cr.) 59 SW 267; Wolfe v. State, 25 Tex. A. 698, 9 SW 44; Jones v. State, 13 Tex. A. 1; Shafer v. State, 7 Tex. A. 239. Wash.-State v. Newton, 39 Wash. 491, 81 P 1002. 50. Warrace v. State, 27 Fla. 362, 8 S 748. And see cases supra note 49. 51. Ga. Turner v. State, 89 Ga. 424, 15 SE 488; Chambers v. State, 85 Ga. 220, 11 SE 653; Patton v. State, 80 Ga. 714, 6 SE 273; Townsend v. State, 7 Ga. A. 811, 68 SE 333; Askew v. State, 3 Ga. A. 79, 59 SE 311. Mass.-Com. v. Graves, 112 Mass. 282. Mo.-State v. Hughes, 82 Mo. 86. Tenn.-Percer v. State, 118 Tenn. 765, 777, 103 SW 780 [quot Cyc]. Tex.-Hardy v. State, (Cr.) 44 SW 173; Zollicoffer v. State, (Cr.) 43 SW 992. 52. State v. Barfield, 36 La. Ann. 89; State V. Barrow, 31 La. Ann. 691; State v. Ford, Mann. Unrep. Cas. (La.) 179. 53. State v. Anderson, 51 La. Ann. 1181. 25 S 990 [dist State v. Barrow, 31 La. Ann. 691]. 54. Williams v. State, 13 Ga. A. 338, 79 SE 207; Com. v. Bates, 1 Pa. Super. 223, 12 Montg. Co. 41. 55. Cross references: Burden of proof as to alibi see infra § 1004. Venue generally see supra §§ 260301. Weight and sufficiency of evidence of venue generally see infra § 1572. 56. Ala. Barnes v. State, 134 Ala. 36. 32 S 670; Dentler v. State, 112 Ala. 70, 20 S 592; Dorsey v. State, 111 Ala. 40, 20 S 629; Randolph v. State, where the prosecution is before a justice of the peace whose jurisdiction is limited by statute to the township where the offense is alleged to have been committed.61 Offense committed in another state. In North Carolina the fact that the offense charged was committed in another state is a matter of defense and the burden of proving it is on accused.62 In federal courts. On an indictment for murder or manslaughter brought in a court of the United States, if the crime was committed on board a vessel on the high seas or in a foreign port, the burden is on the prosecution to show that the vessel belonged to a citizen of the United States,83 and if committed on land, that the place where the crime was committed was within the jurisdiction of the United States.64 [§ 998] 6. Facts Peculiarly within Defendant's Knowledge. Where the subject matter of a negative averment in the indictment, or a fact relied upon by defendant as a justification or excuse, relates to him personally or otherwise lies peculiarly within his knowledge, the general rule is that the burden of proof as to such averment or fact is on him.65 100 Ala. 139, 14 S 792; Tidwell v. State, 70 Ala. 33; Cawthorn v. State, 63 Ala. 157; Sparks v. State, 59 Ala. 82; Martin v. State, 62 Ala. 240; Green v. State, 41 Ala. 419; Parnell v. State, 9 Ala. A. 673, 62 S 307. Ark. Means v. State, 118 Ark. 362, 176 SW 309; Jones v. State, 58 Ark. 390, 24 SW 1073; Frazier v. State, 56 Ark. 242, 19 SW 838; Walker v. State, 35 Ark. 386; Johnson V. State, 32 Ark. 181; Holeman v. State, 13 Ark. 105; Sullivant v. State, 8 Ark. 400. Cal.-Peo. v. Tarpey, 59 Cal. 371; Peo. v. Roach, 48 Cal. 382. Colo.-Thornell 305, 17 P 904. V. Peo., 11 Colo. Del.-State v. Davenport, 25 Del. 12, 77 A 967. Fla.-McKinnie v. State, 32 S 786; Cook v. State, 20 Fla. 802. Ga.-Jones v. State, 113 Ga. 271, 38 SE 851; Berry v. State, 92 Ga. 47, 17 SE 1006; Cloud v. State, 73 Ga. 126; Day v. State, 68 Ga. 827; Simpson v. Macon, 8 Ga. A. 535, 69 SE 1084; Minor v. Atlanta, 7 Ga. A. 471, 67 SE 108. Ill-Huston v. Peo., 53 Ill. A. 501. Ind. Harlan v. State, 134 Ind. 339, 33 NE 1102; Stazey v. State, 58 Ind. 514; Gastner v. State, 47 Ind. 144; Baker v. State, 34 Ind. 104; Clem v. State, 31 Ind. 480; Snyder v. State, 5 Ind. 194; Moody v. State, 7 Blackf. 424. Kan.-Hagan v. State, 4 Kan. 89. Mass.-Com. v. Dorr, 216 Mass. 315, 103 NE 902. Minn. State v. Tosney, 26 Minn. 262, 3 NW 345.. Miss.-Thompson v. State, 51 Miss. 353; Vaughan v. State, 11 Miss. 553. Mo.-State v. Young. 99 Mo. 284, 12 SW 642; State v. Stewart, 8 SW 216; State V. Britton, 80 Mo. 60; State v. Babb, 76 Mo. 501; State v. Meyer, 64 Mo. 190; State v. Kelly. 123 Mo. A. 680. 101 SW 155; State v. Prather, 41 Mo. A. 451; State v. Hopper, 21 Mo. A. 510; State v. Kindrick, 21 Mo. A. 507; State v. McKay, 20 Mo. A. 149. N. M-Terr. v. Padilla, 12 N. M. 1, 71 P 1084. N. Y.-Larkin v. Peo., 61 Barb. 226. Pa. Com. v. Fagan, 2 Pa. Dist. 401, 12 Pa. Co. 613. S. D.-State v. Clark First Nat. Tex.-Belcher v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. 168, 32 SW 770; Kelley v. State, (Cr.) 31 SW 659; Whitlow v. State, (A.) 18 SW 865; Griffin v. State, 26 Tex. A. 157, 9 SW 459, 8 AmSR 460; Tucker v. State, 25 Tex. A. 653, 8 SW 813; Miles v. State, 23 Tex. A. 410. 5 SW 250; Jack v. State, 3 Tex. A. 72. Va.-Anderson V. Com., 100 Va. 860, 42 SE 865; Fitch v. Com., 92 Va. 824, 24 SE 272; Butler v. Com., 81 Va. 159. W. Va.-State v. Hobbs, 37 W. Va. 812, 17 SE 380; State v. Mills, 33 W. Va. 455, 10 SE 808; Hoover v. State, 1 W. Va. 336. 57. Sparks v. State, 59 Ala. 82; Johnson v. State, 32 Ark. 181; Peo. v. Ayers, 182 Mich. 241, 148 NW 383. 58. Com. v. Clauss, 5 Pa. Dist. 658, 18 Pa. Co. 381; Miles v. State, 23 Tex. A. 410, 5 SW 250. 59. Hines V. State, 9 Humphr. (Tenn.) 720. 60. Isabel v. State, 101 Miss. 371, 58 S 1. 61. State v. Sexton, 141 Mo. A. 694, 125 SW 519. 62. State v. Barrington, 141 N. C. 820, 53 SE 663; State v. Blackley, 138 N. C. 620, 50 SE 310; State v. Buchanan, 130 N. C. 660, 41 SE 107; State v. Mitchell, 83 N. C. 674. 63. U. S. v. Imbert, 26 F. Cas. No. 15,438, 4 Wash. C. C. 702. 64. U. S. v. Meagher, 37 Fed. 875. 65. Ala.-Gains v. State, 149 Ala. 29, 43 S 137. Ark.-Cleary, v. State, 56 Ark. 124, 19 SW 313. Cal.-Peo. v. Boo Doo Hong, 122 Cal 606, 55 P 402. Ill-Williams v. Peo., 121 Ill. 84, 11 NE 881. Kan.-State v. Wilson, 62 Kan. 621, 64 P 23. Ky.-Com. v. Bull, 13 Bush 656. Mo.-State v. Casto, 231 Mo. 398. 132 SW 1115; State v. Miller, 182 Mo. 370, 81 SW 867; State v. Lipscomb, 52 Mo. 32; State v. Zehnder, 182 Mo. A. 176, 168 SW 666. N. H.-State v. Keggon, 55 N. H. 19; State v. McGlynn, 34 N. H. 422. N. Y.-Fleming v. Peo., 27 N. Y. 329; Peo. v. Nyce, 34 Hun 298; Peo. v. Bodine, 1 Den. 281, 1 Edm. Sel. Cas. 36. N. C.-State v. Evans, 50 N. C. 250; State v. Arnold, 35 N. C. 184. Okl.-De Graff v. State, 2 Okl. Cr. 519, 103 P 538. Philippine.-U. S. V. Tabuyo, 19 Philippine 501; U. S. v. Tria, 17 Philippine 303. S. D.-State v. Carlisle, 30 S. D. 475, 139 NW 127. [ 999] 7. Matters Excepted in Statute Defining Crime. Where accused relies as a matter of defense on an exception in a statute which is not in the enacting clause by which the offense is described and forbidden, he has the burden of proving that he is within the exception.66 Where, however, a certain matter is part and parcel of the offense, it must be proved by the state regardless of whether or not it is stated in the statute in the form of an exception or a proviso.67 [ 1000] 8. Matters of Defenses-a. In General. The rules that the burden of proof rests on the state 69 and that this burden never shifts 70 have reference to the establishment of the corpus delicti and defendant's complicity;"1 and the burden of introducing evidence to establish a defense can never be placed on accused until after the state has made out a case overcoming the presumption of innocence and proving the guilt of accused beyond a reasonable doubt.72 However, when a prima facie case has been made out, the burden of adducing evidence devolves on accused;73 and as to distinct and substantial matters of defense, consisting of facts either Tex.-Ake v. State, 6 Tex. A. 398, 32 AmR 586. Vt.-State v. McCaffrey, 69 Vt. 85, 37 A 234; State v. Abbey, 29 Vt. 60, 67 AmD 754. Man.-Reg. v. Bryant, 3 Man. 1. 66. Ark.-Richardson v. State, 77 Vt.-State v. McCaffrey, 69 Vt. 85, 37 A 234. B. C.-Reg. v. Strauss, 5 B. 486. C. Ont.-Rex v. Van Norman, 19 Ont. L. 447, 14 OntWR 659. Negation of statutory exceptions and provisos in indictment see Indictments and Informations [22 Cyc 344]. 67. Harris v. State, 14 Ga. A. 574, 81 SE 815; Ferguson v. State, 1 Ga. A. 841, 58 SE 57; State v. Connor, 142 N. C. 700, 55 SE 787. To same effect State v. Hirsch, 45 Mo. 429. Compare Peo. v. Montgomery, 271 Ill. 580, 111 NE 578 [aff 194 Ill. A. 483] (holding that, in a prosecution for selling cocaine without a written prescription of a registered physician, the burden of proof, after evidence of the sale was introduced, was upon accused to show that the sale was upen a prescription of a physician). Negative matters peculiarly within defendant's knowledge supra § 998. 68. Burden of proving: Alibi see infra § 1004. see Capacity or incapacity of infant see Insanity see infra § 1002. 70. See supra § 993. 71. Bennett V. State, 100 Miss. 684, 56 S 777; State v. Sappienza, 84 Oh. St. 63, 95 NE 381, 34 LRANS 1118, AnnCas1912B 1109; Ake V. State, 6 Tex. A. 398, 32 AmR 586. 72. Wharton v. State, 73 Ala. 366; Hawkins v. State, 77 Tex. Cr. 520, 179 SW 448; Guffee v. State, 8 Tex. A. 187. 73. Agnew v. U. S., 165 U. S. 36, 17 SCt 235, 41 L. ed. 624. 74. U. S.-U. S v. Heike, 175 Fed. 952 [writ of error dism 217 U. S. 423, 30 SCt 539, 54 L. ed. 821, and aff 192 Fed. 83, 112 CCA 615]; U. S. V. Wright, 16 Fed. 112; U. S. v. Bab 74 of justification, of excuse, or of exemption from criminal liability, which are wholly disconnected from the body of the particular offense charged and constitute distinct affirmative matter, the burden of proof, or at least the burden of introducing evidence,75 is on accused, unless the fact relied upon otherwise appears in evidence to such an extent as to create a reasonable doubt of guilt.76 Where, in the case of an affirmative defense, the evidence of defendant and that of the state raises a reasonable doubt of guilt, the burden is then on the state." In other words, although the burden of showing a distinct affirmative defense is on defendant, he is entitled, where there is any evidence of such defense, to have it considered by the jury in determining whether on all the evidence in the case the state has established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.78 [ 1001] b. Duress. Where accused sets up the affirmative defense of duress, he has the burden of proving it.79 [ 1002] c. Insanity.80 In a number of jurisdictions, it is a rule that where accused relies on the defense of insanity, he has the burden of establishing it,81 271. cock, 24 F. Cas. No. 14,487, 3 Dill. Ark.-Richards v. State, 108 Ark. Cal.-Peo. v. Boo Doo Hong, 122 Conn.-State V. Schweitzer, 57 Del.-State V. Stockley, 26 Del. 246, 82 A 1078; State v. Lee, 24 Del. 18, 74 A 4; State v. Kavanaugh, 20 Del. 131, 53 A 335. Fla.-Padgett v. State, 40 Fla. 451, 24 S 145. Ga.-Pierce v. State, 53 Ga. 365. Ill. Williams v. Peo., 121 Ill. 84, 11 NE 881. Iowa.-State v. Morphy, 33 Iowa 270, 11 AmR 122; State v. Felter, 32 Iowa 49; State v. Vincent, 24 Iowa 570, 95 AmD 753. Kan.-State v. Wilson, 62 Kan. 621, Ky.-Com. v. Standard Oil Co., 129 Mass.-Com. v. Boyer, 7 Allen 306; Miss.-Bennett v. State, 100 Miss. 684, 56 S 777. Mo.-State v. Wright, 134 Mo. 404, 35 SW 1145; State v. Hickam, 95 Mo. 322, 8 SW 252, 6 AmSR 54; State v. Pagels, 92 Mo. 300, 4 SW 931. Nev.-State v. Davis, 14 Nev. 439, 33 AmR 563. N. Y.-Peo. v. Schryver, 42 N. Y. 1, 1 AmR 480; Fleming v. Peo., 27 N. Y. 329. N. C.-State v. Smith, 157 N. C. 578, 72 SE 853; State v. Arnold, 35 N. C. 184. Oh.-State v. Sappienza, 84 Oh. St. 63, 95 NE 381, 34 LRANS 1118, Ann Cas1912B 1109. Okl.-Coleman v. Terr., 5 Okl. 201, Pa. Com. v. Zelt, 138 Pa. 615, 21 Tenn.-King v. State, 91 Tenn. 617, Tex.-Zion v. State, (Cr.) 61 SW 306; Donaldson v. State, 15 Tex. A. 25: Jones v. State, 13 Tex. A. 1; Hozier v. State, 6 Tex. A. 501; Ake v. State, 6 Tex. A. 398, 32 AmR 586. Vt.-State v. McCaffrey, 69 Vt. 85, 37 A 234; State v. Abbey, 29 Vt. 60, 67 AmD 754. Ont.-Rex v. St. Clair, 28 Ont. L. Compare Roberson v. State, 183 Ala. 43, 49, 62 S 837 (where the court said: "If the act charged in the indictment is one which is justifiable or excusable, a criminal act has not been committed if the facts show justification or excuse; and the jury may acquit if they entertain a reasonable doubt as to whether the act shown constituted a crime. In civil cases justification or excuse, as a rule, must be specially pleaded, but in criminal cases the rule is the other way (except as to insanity and, maybe, some other phases); and such matters are open under the general issue, and the affirmative proof of the crime, in such cases, when not specially pleaded, remains in all stages upon the prosecution, and if upon the whole evidence the jury entertain a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, he is entitled to an acquittal"). 75. Cook v. Peo., 60 Colo. 263, 153 P 214; Lewis v. Lewis, 7 Tex. A. 567; Leonard v. State, 7 Tex. A. 417. 76. Com. v. McKie, 1 Gray (Mass.) 61, 61 AmD 410; State v. Bartlett, 43 N. H. 224, 80 AmD 154. 77. Leslie v. State, 35 Fla. 171, 17 S 555; Dacey v. Peo., 116 Ill. 555, 6 NE 165; Bradley v. State, 31 Ind. 492, and cases in the note following. 78. Cal.-Peo. v. Bushton, 80 Cal. 160, 22 P 127, 549. Fla.-Murphy v. State, 31 Fla. 166, 12 S 453; Adams v. State, 28 Fla. 511, 10 S 106. Ind.-Howard v. State, 50 Ind. 190. Iowa.-State v. Beasley, 84 Iowa 83, 50 NW 570; State v. Hemrick, 62 Iowa 414, 17 NW 594. La.-State v. Ardoin, 49 La. Ann. 1145, 22 S 620, 62 AmSR 678. Mass.-Com. v. Choate, 105 Mass. 451. Mo.-State v. Howell, 100 Mo. 628, 14 SW 4; State v. Johnson, 91 Mo. 439, 3 SW 868; State v. Jennings, 81 Mo. 185, 51 AmR 236. N. M.-Trujillo v. Terr., 7 N. M. 43, 32 P 154. N. C.-State v. Reitz, 83 N. C. 634. Pa. Com. v. Gentry, 5 Pa. Dist. 703. Vt.-State v. Ward, 61 Vt. 153, 17 A 483. W. Va.-State v. Lowry, 42 W. Va. 205, 24 SE 561. 79. State v. Sappienza, 84 Oh. St. 63, 95 NE 381, 34 LRANS 1118, 7 AnnCas1912B 1109. 80. Degree of proof see infra §§ 1587, 1590. 81. U. S.-U. S. v. Ridgeway, 31 Fed. 144. Ark.-Casat v. State, 40 Ark. 511. at least where it is admitted that, if sane, he is guilty as charged,82 or where the state shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed by accused.83 In these jurisdictions the introduction of evidence tending to rebut the presumption of sanity and sufficient to create a reasonable doubt as to the sanity of accused does not cast on the state the burden of removing the doubt or of proving the sanity of accused.84 However, where a habitual, permanent, or chronic state of insanity is shown to exist, the burden of establishing a subsequent lucid interval at the time of the act in question rests on the state.s 85 Likewise where accused has been adjudged insane, the burden rests on the state of showing his sanity at the time of the act charged,80 except where the findings and evidence at the trial for insanity do not cover the period in which he is alleged to have committed the offense.87 88 In other jurisdictions the rule is that the burden of proving the sanity of accused rests on the state, and that while, in the absence of any evidence on the subject, or in the absence of evidence raising a reasonable doubt of sanity, the presumption of sanity 89 makes a prima facie case in this respect and satisfies the burden of proof,90 making it unnecessary for the state to introduce evidence in chief of defendant's sanity,91 yet whenever the question of sanity is put in issue by facts coming from either side which raise a doubt as to defendant's sanity, it then devolves upon the state to establish his sanity.92 The rule is sometimes stated to be that, as soon as evidence is introduced on behalf of accused tending to show insanity or to overthrow the presumption of sanity, the burden of proving the sanity of accused rests on the state, that being one of the necessary conditions on which guilt may be predicated.93 In some of these jurisdictions the rule also Ill-Hopps v. Peo., 31 III. 385, 83 AmD 231. Ind.-Walters V. State, 183 Ind. 178, 108 NE 583. Mass.-Com. V. Eddy, 7 Gray Del-State v. Lee, 24 Del. 18, 74 | 24 PittsbLegJNS 90; Com. v. Farkin, A 4; State v. Cole, 18 Del. 344, 45 A 2 Pars. Eq. Cas. 439; Com. v. Smith, 391; State v. Hand, 15 Del. 545, 41 6 AmLReg 257; Com. v. Winnemore, A 192; State v. Reidell, 14 Del. 470, 1 Brewst. 356; Com. v. Shurlock, 14 14 A 550; State v. Danby, Houst. Cr. LegInt 33; Com. v. Lynch, 3 Pittsb. 166; State v. Hurley, Houst. Cr. 28. 412. But see State v. Draper, Houst. Cr. 291 (holding that where a deaf and dumb person is charged with the commission of a crime, the burden is on the state to prove that he was of sound mind when he committed the deed). Ga.-Keener v. State. 97 Ga. 388, 24 SE 28; Hobbs v. State, 8 Ga. A. 53, 68 SE 515. Ida.-Peo. v. Walter. 1 Ida. 386. Iowa. State v. Humbles, 126 Iowa 462, 102 NW 409; State v. Robbins, 109 Iowa 650, 80 NW 1061; State v. Jones, 64 Iowa 349, 17 NW 911, 20 NW 470; State v. Geddis, 42 Iowa 264; State v. Felter, 32 Iowa 49. Ky.-Hall v. Com., 155 Ky. 541. 159 SW 1155; Phelps v. Com., 32 SW 470, 17 KyL 706; Moore v. Com., 92 Ky. 630, 18 SW 833, 13 KyL 738; Farris v. Com. 1 SW 729, 8 KyL 417; Ball v. Com., 81 Ky. 662, 5 KyL 787; Kriel v. Com., 5 Bush 362; Graham v. Com., 16 B. Mon. 587. La.-State v. Scott, 49 La. Ann. 253, 21 S 271, 36 LRA 721; State v. Clements, 47 La. Ann. 1088, 17 S 502; State v. De Rance, 34 La. Ann. 186, 44 AmR 426; State v. Coleman, 27 La. Ann. 691; State v. Burns, 25 La. Ann. 302. Me.-State v. Lawrence, 57 Me. 574. Minn.-State v. Gut, 13 Minn. 341; State v. Brown, 12 Minn. 538; Bonfanti v. State, 2 Minn. 123. Mo.-State v. Porter, 213 Mo. 43, 111 SW 529, 127 AmSR 589; State v. Speyer, 207 Mo. 540, 106 SW 505, 14 LRANS 836; State v. Wright, 134 Mo. 404, 35 SW 1145; State v. Schaefer, 116 Mo. 96, 22 SW 447; State V. Redemeier, 71 Mo. 173, 36 AmR 462; State v. Smith, 53 Mo. 267; State v. Klinger, 43 Mo. 127; State v. McCoy, 34 Mo. 531, 86 AmD 121. Nev.-State v. Nelson, 36 Nev. 403, 136 P 377; State v. Lewis, 20 Nev. 333. 22 P 241. N. J.-State v. Overton, 85 N. J. L. 287, 88 A 689; Graves v. State, 45 N. J. L. 203 [aff 45 N. J. L. 347, 46 AmR 778]; State v. Spencer, 21 N. J. L. 196. N. C.-State v. Hancock, 151 N. C. 699. 66 SE 137. Oh-State v. Austin, 71 Oh. St. 317, 73 NE 218, 104 AmSR 778; Bergin v. State, 31 Oh. St. 111; Bond v. State, 23 Oh. St. 349; Loeffner V. State, 10 Oh. St. 598. Pa.-Com. v. Heidler, 191 Pa. 375, 43 A 211; Com. v. Wireback, 190 Pa. 138, 42 A 542, 70 AmSR 625; Com. v. Bezek, 168 Pa. 603, 32 A 109; Com. v. Gerade, 145 Pa. 289, 22 A 464, 27 Am SR 689; Meyers v. Com., 83 Pa. 131, 583. Miss.-Ford v. State, 73 Miss. 734, 19 S 665, 35 LRA 117. Mont.-State v. Peel, 23 Mont. 358, 59 P 169, 75 AmSR 529. N. Y.-O'Connell v. Peo., 87 N. Y. 377, 41 AmR 379; Brotherton v. Peo., 75 N. Y. 159. Tex.-Burgess v. State, 78 Tex. Cr. 469, 181 SW 465; Douglas v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. 385, 165 SW 933; Graham v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. 28, 163 SW 726; Smith v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. 563, 117 SW 966; Thomas v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. 293, 116 SW 600; Fults v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. 502, 98 SW 1057; Carlisle v. State, (Cr.) 56 SW 365; Riley v. State, (Cr.) 44 SW 498; Burt v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. 397, 40 SW 1000, 43 SW 344, 39 LRA 305, 330; Boren v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. 637, 25 SW 775; Love-53, 145 P 520. grove v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. 491, 21 SW 191; Fisher v. State, 30 Tex. A. 502, 18 SW 90; Leache v. State, 22 Tex. A. 279, 3 SW 539, 58 AmR 638. Va.-Baccigalupo v. Com., 33 Gratt. (74 Va.) 807, 36 AmR 795. Wash.-State v. Clark, 34 Wash. 485, 76 P 98, 101 AmSR 1006. Eng. Reg. v. Layton, 4 Cox C. C. 149. "The burden of proof is on the defendant to show that he was insane at the time of the commission of the offense." Guerrero v. State, 75 Tex. Cr. 558, 561, 171 SW 731, 733. [a] "It is no injustice to a defendant to presume that he is sane, and to require him to prove the unnatural condition of mind, which he alleges as a defense for a crime admitted, and to relieve him from a penalty justly due to men in their natural condition." State v. Clark, 34 Wash. 485, 498, 76 P 98, 101 Am SR 1006. 82. Bell v. State, 120 Ark. 530, 180 SW 186. 83. Douglas v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. 385, 399, 165 SW 933. "This court has always adhered to the rule, that when the State shows that the crime was committed by the person on trial beyond a reasonable doubt, and he seeks to avoid its consequences by proof that he was not mentally responsible for his acts, the burden is on him to SO show." Douglas v. State, supra. 84. Cavaness V. State, 43 Ark. 331; State v. Craig, 52 Wash. 66, 100 P 167. 85. State v. Lowe, 93 Mo. 547, 5 SW 889. 86. Witty v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. 125. 153 SW 1146. 87. Welch v. State, 71 Tex. Cr. 17, 157 SW 946. 88. Cal.-Peo. v. Harris, 169 Cal. 53, 145 P 520. Colo.-Pribble v. Peo., 49 Colo. 210, 112 P 220. Fla.-Armstrong v. State, 30 Fla. 170, 11 S 618, 17 LRA 484. Wyo.-Flanders v. State, 24 Wyo. 81, 156 P 39, 1121; State v. Pressler, 16 Wyo. 214, 92 P 806, 15 AnnCas 93. 89. See infra § 1011. 90. Cal.-Peo. v. Harris, 169 Cal. Fla.-Brown v. State, 40 Fla. 459, 25 S 63. Ind.-Walters v. State, 183 Ind. 178. 108 NE 583. Mass.-Com. V. Eddy, 7 Gray 583. Miss. Ford v. State, 73 Miss. 734. 19 S 665, 35 LRA 117. N. M.-Faulkner v. Terr., 6 N. M. 464, 30 P 905. N. Y.-O'Connell v. Peo., 87 N. Y. 377, 41 AmR 379; Brotherton v. Peo., 75 N. Y. 159. 91. Peo. v. Loomis, 170 Cal. 347, 149 P 581; Brown v. State, 40 Fla. 459, 25 S 63; Armstrong v. State, 30 Fla. 170, 11 S 618, 17 LRA 484; Peo. v. Spencer, 264 Ill. 124, 106 NE 219: Montag v. Peo., 141 Ill. 75, 30 NE 337; Walters v. State, 183 Ind. 178, 108 NE 583; Sanders v. State, 94 Ind. 147. 92. Fla.-Armstrong v. State, 30 Fla. 170, 11 S 618, 17 LRA 484. Ill.-Peo. v. Spencer, 264 Ill. 124. 106 NE 219; Montag v. Peo., 141 m. 75, 30 NE 337; Dacey v. Peo., 116 Ill. 555, 6 NE 165. Ind. Walters V. State, 183 Ind. 178, 108 NE 583. Mont-State v. Peel, 23 Mont. 358, 59 P 169, 75 AmSR 529. N. M.-Terr. v. McNabb, 16 N. M. 625, 120 P 907. Okl.-Adair v. State, 6 Okl. Cr. 284, 118 P 416, 44 LRANS 119. 93. Peo. v. Eggleston, 186 Mich. 510, 152 NW 944; Peo. v. Garbutt, 17 Mich. 9, 97 AmD 162; Knights V. State. 58 Nebr. 225, 78 NW 508, 76 AmSR 78; Snider v. State, 56 Nebr. But 309. 76 NW 574. see Peo. v. Finley, 38 Mich. 482, 485 (where the court said: "It certainly is not true that the introduction of testimony of such insanity necessarily throws any burden on the prosecution; for the jury may not regard such testimony as of any weight whatever, and may not believe the opinions of the witnesses. It is only where the testimony creates a reasonable doubt. that there is any occasion to remove the doubt"). H 94 prevails that where insanity is interposed as a de- "not guilty by reason of insanity," 3 or where the commission of the act charged as a crime is proved, and the defense is insanity.* [§ 1003] d. Intoxication.5 Where accused tenders the defense of intoxication, the burden is on him to establish it." [§ 1004] e. Alibi. In some jurisdictions, the burden of proving an alibi rests on accused.s However, failure to sustain the burden does not relieve the prosecution from the burden of proving the guilt of accused;" and any evidence of alibi is to be considered with the rest of the evidence in the case in determining whether there is a reasonable doubt of guilt.10 Nor is the burden resting on the state shifted by insisting erroneously that accused is interposing the defense of alibi; and although defendant, where the case is otherwise made out against him, is bound to offer some evidence in support of his alibi,12 the state, in all cases where his presence at the time and place of the crime is necessary to render him responsible, must prove that he was there as part of its case; and if from all the Statutes in a few jurisdictions place the burden of evidence there exists a reasonable doubt of his presestablishing insanity on accused where the plea is ence, he should be acquitted.13 94. Peo. v. Loomis, 170 Cal. 347, S 573; Rayfield v. State, 167 Ala. 94, 350, 149 P 581; Peo. v. Willard, 150 52 S 833. Cal. 543, 89 P 124; Peo. v. Suesser, 142 4. State v. Hansen, 25 Or. 391, Cal. 354, 75 P 1093; Peo. v. Hettick, 35 P 976, 36 P 296. 126 Cal. 425, 58 P 918; Peo. v. Ward, 105 Cal. 335, 38 P 945; Peo. v. Bemmerly, 98 Cal. 299, 33 P 263; Peo. v. Travers, 88 Cal. 233, 26 P 88; Peo. v. Hamilton, 62 Cal. 377; Peo. v. Bell, 49 Cal. 485; Peo. v. Coffman, 24 Cal. 230; Peo. v. Myers, 20 Cal. 518; Com. v. Eddy, 7 Gray (Mass.) 583; Brotherton v. Peo., 75 N. Y. 159. "If insanity is urged as a defense in a criminal case, it is for the defendant to prove it by a preponderof the evidence." Peo. V. Loomis, supra. ance 95. Peo. v. Harris, 169 Cal. 53, 68, 145 P 520; Faulkner v. Terr., 6 N. M. 464, 30 P 905. "The rule prevailing in this state, and in the majority of jurisdictions elsewhere, requiring the defendant, where insanity is interposed as a defense by him, to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence does not affect the rule that the burden of proving sanity is on the prosecution. That burden is always on it and it is met in the first instance by the presumption which the law raises of sanity and which must prevail until it is overcome. The rule casting upon the defendant the burden of establishing his insanity by a preponderance of the evidence does not shift this burden of proof from the prosecution to him but only shifts the burden of introducing evidence and declares the amount or quantum of evidence which he must produce to overthrow the presumption and show his insanity." Peo. v. Harris, supra. 96. Cal.-Peo. v. Harris, 169 Cal. 53, 145 P 520. Mass.-Com. v. Eddy, 7 Gray 583. N. Y.-Brotherton v. Peo., 75 N. Y. 159. Okl-Maas v. Terr., 10 Okl. 714, 63 P 960, 53 LRA 814. Utah.-State v. Brown, 36 Utah 46, 102 P 641, 24 LRANS 545; Peo. v. Dillon, 8 Utah 92, 30 P 150. 97. See infra §§ 1586, 1587. 98. Johnson v. State, 57 Fla. 18, 49 S 40; State v. Peel, 23 Mont. 358, 59 P 169, 75 AmSR 529. 99. Ford v. State, 73 Miss. 734, 19 S 665, 35 LRA 117. Presumption of continuance of insanity see infra § 1012. 1. Ford v. State, 73 Miss. 734, 19 S 665, 35 LRA 117. 2. Ford v. State, 73 Miss. 734, 19 S 665, 35 LRA 117. 5. Intoxication as defense see supra §§ 81-86. 6. U. S.-U. S. v. Roudenbush, 27 Ark. Casat v. State, 40 Ark. 511; 136. Del-State v. Kavanaugh, 20 Del. 131, 53 A 335. Iowa.-State v. Harrison, 167 Iowa 334, 149 NW 452; State v. Sparegrove, 134 Iowa 599, 112 NW 83. La.-State v. Hill, 46 La. Ann. 27, Mass.-Com. V. McNamee, 112 Minn.-State v. Grear, 29 Minn. 221, 13 NW 140; State v. Gut, 13 Minn. 341; Bonfanti v. State, 2 Minn. 123. Nebr.-Davis v. State, 54 Nebr. 177, 74 NW 599. N. J.-State v. Spencer, 21 N. J. L. 196. N. C.-State v. Sewell,; 48 N. C. 245. Or.-State v. Trapp, 56 Or. 588, 109 P 1094. Pa.-Com. v. Gentry, 5 Pa. Dist. 703. Tex.-Riley v. State, (Cr.) 44 SW 498. 8. State v. Lee, 24 Del. 18, 74 A 4; 9. State V. Bosworth, 170 Iowa 329, 152 NW 581; Briceland v. Com., 74 Pa. 463. 10. Cochran v. State, 113 Ga. 726, 39 SE 332; Boston v. State, 94 Ga. 590, 20 SE 98; Miles v. State, 93 Ga. 117, 19 SE 805, 44 AmSR 140; Harrison v. State, 83 Ga. 129, 9 SE 542; Landis v. State, 70 Ga. 651, 48 AmR 588: Johnson v. State, 59 Ga. 142. 11. State v. Bosworth, 170 Iowa 329, 152 NW 581. 12. State v. Brauneis, 84 Conn. 222, 79 A 70; State v. Bogris, 26 Ida. 587, 144 P 789; Wilburn v. Terr., 10 N. M. 402, 62 P 968; State v. Thornton, 10 S. D. 349, 73 NW 196, 41 LRA 530. 13. U. S.-Glover v. U. S., 147 Fed. 426, 77 CCA 450, 8 AnnCas 1184 [rev 6 Ind. T. 262, 91 SW 41]. Ala.-Beavers v. State, 103 Ala. 36, 15 S 616; Albritton v. State, 94 Ala. 76, 10 S 426; Pate v. State, 94 Ala. 14, 10 S 665. Ariz.-Schultz v. Terr., 5 Ariz. 239, 52 P 352. Ark. Wells v. State, 102 Ark. 627, 145 SW 531; Ware v. State, 59 Ark. 379, 27 SW 485; Blankenship v. State, 55 Ark. 244, 18 SW 54. Cal.-Peo. v. Roberts, 122 Cal. 377, 55 P 137; Peo. v. Worden, 113 Cal. 569, 45 P 844; Peo. v. Nelson, 85 Cal. 421, 24 P 1006. Colo. McNamara v. Peo., 24 Colo. 61, 48 P 541; Wisdom v. Peo., 11 Colo. 170, 17 P 519. Conn.-State v. Brauneis, 84 Conn. 222, 79 A 70. Ind. Howard V. State, 50 Ind. 190; West V. State, 48 Ind. 483; French v. State, 12 Ind. 670, 74 AmD 229. Iowa.-State v. Bosworth, 170 Iowa 329, 152 NW 581. Kan.-State v. Conway, 55 Kan. 323, 40 P 661, 56 Kan. 682, 44 P 627; State v. Child, 40 Kan. 482, 20 P 275. La.-State v. Ardoin, 49 La. Ann. 1145, 22 S 620, 62 AmSR 678. Mass.-Com. v. Choate, 105 Mass. 451. Mich.-Peo. v. Pichette, 111 Mich. 461, 69 NW 739; Stuart v. Peo., 42 Mich. 255, 3 NW 863. Miss.-Pollard v. State, 53 Miss. 410, 24 AmR 703. Mo.-State v. Tatlow, 136 Mo. 678, 38 SW 552; State v. Harvey, 131 Mo. 339, 32 SW 1110; State v. Powers, 130 Mo. 475, 32 SW 984; State v. Taylor, 118 Mo. 153, 24 SW 449; State V. Woolard, 111 Mo. 248, 20 SW 27: State v. Howell, 100 Mo. 628, 14 SW 4 [overr State v. Jennings, 81 Mo. 185, 51 AmR 236]; State v. Lewis, 69 Mo. 92. Mont.-State v. McClellan, 23 Mont. 532, 59 P 924, 75 AmSR 558. Nebr.-Peyton v. State, 54 Nebr. 188, 74 NW 597; Henry v. State, 51 Nebr. 149, 70 NW 924, 66 AmSR 450: Beck v. State, 51 Nebr. 106, 70 NW 498: Casey v. State, 49 Nebr. 403. 68 NW 643. 17 66 [1005] D. Presumptions 14-1. In General. There has been much refinement of reasoning and confusion of terms as to presumptions.15 Some courts distinguish between an inference and a presumption,16 by holding that an "inference" is nothing more than a permissible deduction from the evidence, while a "presumption" is compulsory, and cannot be disregarded by the jury.18 Also presumptions of law are frequently classed as conclusive and rebuttable;19 a conclusive presumption" of law being deemed to be an inference which must be drawn from the proof of given facts, which no evidence, however strong, will be permitted to overthrow,20 while a "rebuttable presumption" of law is an inference which obtains until overthrown by proof.21 Some courts regard presumptions as evidence;22 but, on the other hand, it is held that a presumption of law has no probative force;23 that it is merely an administrative assumption for procedural purposes;24 and that its truth is always open to rebuttal.2 25 There can be no presumption against accused of a fact essential to his conviction;26 and while it has been declared that every presumption Nev.-State v. Waterman, 1 Nev. 543. N. J.-Sherlock v. State, 60 N. J. L. 31, 37 A 435. N. M.-State v. Smith, 21 N. M. 173, 153 P 256; Tais v. Terr., 94 P 947, 948 [cit Cyc]; Wilburn v. Terr., 10 N. M. 402, 62 P 968; Borrego v. Terr., 8 N. M. 446, 46 P 349; Trujillo v. Terr., 7 N. M. 43, 32 P 154. N. C.-State v. Reitz, 83 N. C. 634; State v. Jaynes, 78 N. C. 504; State v. Josey, 64 N. C. 56. Oh.-Walters v. State, 39 Oh. St. 215; Gawn v. State, 13 Oh. Cir. Ct. 116, 7 Oh, Cir. Dec. 19. Okl.-Wright v. Terr., 5 Okl. 78, 47 P 1069; Shoemaker v. Terr., 4 Okl. 118, 43 P 1059. Or.-State v. Chee Gong, 16 534, 538, 19 P 607. Or. Pa.-Watson v. Com., 95 Pa. 418, 422; Fife v. Com., 29 Pa. 429. S. C.-State v. Atkins, 49 S. C. 481, 27 SE 484; State v. Nance, 25 S. C. 168; State v. Watson, 41 S. C. L. 63. S. D.-State v. Thornton, 10 S. D. 349, 73 NW 196, 41 LRA 530. Tenn.-Wiley v. State, 5 Baxt. 662; Chappel v. State, 7 Coldw. 92. Tex.-Caldwell V. State, 28 Tex. A. 566, 14 SW 122; Ayres v. State, 21 Tex. A. 399, 17 SW 253; Johnson v. State, 21 Tex. A. 368, 17 SW 252; Thornton v. State, 20 Tex. A. 519; Humphries v. State, 18 Tex. A. 302. Vt.-State v. Ward, 61 Vt. 153, 17 A 483. W. Va.-State v. Lowry, 42 W. Va. 205, 24 SE 561. [a] Rules distinguished.-"The defense of alibi, which casts certain burdens upon the defendant, is an affirmative defense which asserts that distance made it impossible to commit the crime. What was done here amounts to a denial of guilt, with the concession that no distance or other physical cause made it impossible, or even improbable, that defendant committed the offense. It amounts to a plea of not guilty, and the defendant is not bound to prove its truth, nor should his testimony in support of such plea be disparaged. It is none too clear what is meant by the rule which puts the burden as to alibi on the defendant, and makes his testimony on alibi available in aid of creating a reasonable doubt which, if entertained, effects a holding that the State has not met its burden. The distinction we have herein pointed out tends to help clear the tangle. A denial that defendant participated leaves the burden on the State. If coupled with must be resolved in favor of one who is charged with the commission of a crime,27 yet there are certain presumptions against accused, such as the presumption of sanity,28 knowledge of the law,29 and that a person intends the natural and reasonable consequences of his acts;30 and, in some instances, the presumption of innocence gives way to other presumptions.31 At any rate, a person accused of crime, wherever the law indulges a presumption adverse to him, has the right to meet and to overcome that presumption, if it is within his power, by proper evidence.32 32 One inference or presumption cannot be based upon another.3 33 Presumptions declared by statute to be disputable are in effect only inferences which, in the absence of any controverting evidence, the jury is required to make.34 Where a contract is involved in a criminal case, any presumption arising in connection therewith will be taken in favor of accused.35 [§ 1006] 2. Of Certain Matters36-a. Innocence −(1) In General. Accused is presumed to be innocent of the crime charged against him.37 The pre the denial there be a claim that the evidence shows the defendant was too far away to have participated, an acquittal can be had upon that affirmative defense alone, but only if defendant proves such defense." State v. Bosworth, 170 Iowa 329, 338, 152 NW 581, 585. 14. Presumptions: As to jurisdiction see supra §§ 255, 256. In civil cases see Evidence [16 Cyc 1050 et seq]. Instructions as to see infra § 2387. Relative to marriage relation Statutory presumptions as: see Due process of law see Constitutional Law § 979. Equal protection of laws see Constitutional Law § 954. Encroachment on judiciary see Constitutional Law § 285. Interference with vested rights Constitutional Law § 580. 15. Welty v. State, 180 Ind. 273, 100 NE 73. see 16. Terr. v. Lucero, 16 N. M. 652, 120 P 304, 39 LRANS 58. 17. 120 P 18. 120 P Terr. v. Lucero, 16 N. M. 652, 304, 39 LRANS 58. Terr. v. Lucero, 16 N. M. 652, 304, 39 LRANS 58. 19. Barrow v. Terr., 13 Ariz. 302, 114 P 975; State v. Pilling, 53 Wash. 464, 102 P 230, 132 AmSR 1080. 20. Barrow v. Terr., 13 Ariz. 302, 114 P 975; State v. Pilling, 53 Wash. 464, 102 P 230, 132 AmSR 1080. 21. Barrow v. Terr., 13 Ariz. 302, 114 P 975; State v. Pilling, 53 Wash. 464, 102 P 230, 132 AmSR 1080. 22. Peo. v. Wong Sang Lung, 3 Cal. A. 221, 84 P 843. Presumption of innocence as evidence see infra § 1006. 23. Welty v. State, 180 Ind. 100 NE 73. 24. Welty v. State, 180 Ind. 100 NE 73. 411, 411, 25. Welty v. State, 180 Ind. 411, 100 NE 73. 26. State v. Henke, 58 Iowa 457, 12 NW 477. 27. U. S. v. Boquilon, 10 Philippine 4. 28. See infra § 1011. 29. See infra § 1014. 30. See supra § 49. 31. See infra § 1008. 32. Cr. 572, 108 SW 386. Mo.-State V. Schamel, 177 SW 351; State v. Jacobs, 133 Mo. A. 182, 113 SW 244. N. Y.-Peo. v. Razezicz, 206 N. Y. 249, 99 NE 557. Tex.-Maddox v. State, 76 Tex. Cr. 217, 173 SW 1026; Trinkle v. State, 71 Tex. Cr. 64, 158 SW 544. Utah.-State v. Potello, 40 Utah 56, 119 P 1023. 34. Peo. v. Wong Sang Lung, 3 Cal. A. 221, 84 P 843. 35. Keller v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 87 SW 669. 36. Cross references: Conflict between presumption of innocence and other presumptions see infra § 1033. Instructions on presumption of innocence see infra § 2388. Necessity of evidence being inconsistent with hypothesis of innocence see infra § 1568. 37. U. S.-Agnew v. U. S., 165 U. S. 36, 17 SCt 235, 41 L. ed. 624; U. S. v. Gooding, 12 Wheat. 460, 6 L. ed. 693; U. S. v. Guthrie, 171 Fed. 528; U. S. v. Kenney, 90 Fed. 257; U. S. v. Douglass, 25 F. Cas. No. 14,989, 2 Blatchf. 207; U. S. v. Galacar, 25 F. Cas. No. 15,181, 1 Sprague 545; U. S. v. Montgomery, 26 F. Cas. No. 15,800, 3 Sawy. 544. Ala.-Harrison v. State, 144 Ala. 20, 40 S 568; Rogers v. State, 117 Ala 192, 23 S 82; Waters v. State, 117 Ala. 108, 22 S 490; Bryant v. State, 116 Ala. 445, 23 S 40; Newsom v. State, 107 Ala, 133, 18 S 206; Hawes v. State, 88 Ala. 37, 7 S 302; Wharton v. State, 73 Ala. 366; Ogletree v. State, 28 Ala. 693; Patterson v. State, 21 Ala. 571; State v. Murphy, 6 Ala. 845; Perry v. State, 11 Ala. A. 195, 65 S 683. Ariz.-Crowell v. State, 15 Ariz. 66, 136 P 279. Ark.-McArthur v. State, 59 Ark. 431, 27 SW 628; State v. Prescott, 31 Ark. 39; Hopper v. State, 19 Ark. 143. Cal.-Peo. v. Arlington, 131 Cal. 231, 63 P 347; Peo. v. O'Brien, 130 Cal. 1, 62 P 297; Peo. v. Winthrop, 118 Cal. 85, 50 P 390; Peo. v. Sanders; 114 Cal. 216, 46 P 153; Peo. v. O'Brien, 106 Cal. 104, 39 P 325; Peo. v. Eppinger, 105 Cal. 36, 38 P 538; Peo. v. Phillips, 27 Cal. A. 409, 150 P 75. Conn.-State v. Smith, 65 Conn. 283, 31 A 206. Del.-State v. De Luca, 25 Del. Vanhouser v. State, 52 Tex. 158, 77 A 742; State v. Lee, 24 Del. 33. Ind.-Dowell v. State, 181 Ind. 68, 101 NE 815. 18, 74 A 4. Fla.-Long v. State, 42 Fla. 509, 28 S 775; Reeves v. State, 29 Fla. |