State v. Brinyea
Supreme Court of Alabama
EkkoR to the Circuit Court of Montgomery. This cause is presented on questions reserved for the opinion of this Court, as novel and difficult.
Read the full summary
EkkoR to the Circuit Court of Montgomery. This cause is presented on questions reserved for the opinion of this Court, as novel and difficult. On the trial the prisoner relied on the defence of insanity, and introduced witnesses who testified to acts and declarations of the prisoner tending to prove insanity; whereupon his counsel proposed to ask the witnesses for their opinions as to the sanity or insanity of the prisoner, as deduced from the acts or declarations testified to by them. This question was excluded by the Court, the witnesses not being of the medical profession. The Court…
1Opinion of the CourtGoldthwaite, J.
1. There is a considerable diversity of decision upon the point, whether a witness, not being a physician, can properly be allowed to give his opinion in evidence, when the matter to be ascertained is the insanity of an individual. [The cases on this subject are collected in Cowen’s and Hill’s notes to Philips on Evidence, 759, note 529.]
Although the greater number of these recognize the rule as ordinarily understood, and as declared by the Circuit Court, yet there are some which seem to sustain the position insisted for by the prisoner’s counsel. Our intention is not to review them, as it…
2Cited by17 opinions
- People v. GarbuttMichigan Supreme Court · 1868
- McAllister v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1850
- Boswell v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1879
- McLean v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1849
- Partridge v. ForsythSupreme Court of Alabama · 1856
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.