GUITBAU'S CASB. 163 �sequently no malice aforethought ; and this would reduce the crime to manslaughter. But it is hardly necessary to say that there is nothing of that kind in the present case. You will probably see that either the defendant is guilty of murder or he is innocent. �But, in order to constitute the crime of murder, the assassin must have a responsibly sane mind. The technical term, "sound memory and discretion," in the old common-law definition of murder, means this. An irresponsibly insane man can no more commit murder than a sane man can do so without killing. His condition of mind cannot be separated from the act. If he is laboring under disease of his mental faculties — if that is a proper expression — to such an extent that he does not know what he is doing, or does not know that it is wrong, then he is wanting in that sound memory and discretion which make a part of the definition of murder. �In the next place, I instruct you that every defendant is presumed innocent untii the accusation against him is established by proof . �In the next place, notwith standing this presumption of innocence, it is equally true that a defendant is presumed to be sane and have been so at the time when the crime charged against him was com- mitted; that is to say, the government is not bound, as a part of its proofs, to show, affirmatively, that the defendant was sane. As in- sanity is the exception, and most men are sane, the law presumes the latter condition of everybody until some reason is shown to believe the contrary. The burden is therefore on the defendant, who sets up insanity as an excuse for crime, to bring forward his proofs, in the first instance, to show that that presumption is a mistake as far as it relates to him. �The crime, then, involves three elements, viz. : The killing, malice, and a responsible mind in the murderer. �But after all the evidence is in, if the jury, while bearing in mind both these presumptions that I have mentioned, — i. e., that the defend- ant is innocent till he is proved guilty, and that he is and was sane, unless evidence to the contrary appears, — and considering the whole evidence in the case, still entertain what is called a reasonable doubt, on any ground, (either as to the killing, or the responsible condition of mind,) whether he is guilty of the crime of murder, as it bas been explained and defined, then the rule is that the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and to an acquittai. �But here it beeomes important to explain to you, in the best way that I can, what is a reasonable doubt. I can hardly venture to give ��� �
