sane delusion that the deceased was trying to marry his mother, or had acted dishonestly toward him, or had not properly attended to his business, or had inflicted a serious injury to his character and fortune, 10 or had been putting poison in his food,11 or was spying upon him and had divulged his plan to escape from prison.12 But he is not responsible where he kills as a result of an insane delusion that the deceased was attempting to kill him and that it was necessary to kill him in self-defense.13 Some courts, however, have repudiated this rule, and hold that an insane delusion may prevent a conviction even though the supposed state of facts with respect to which the delusion existed would not have justified the commission of the act, if real.14 To exempt a person in any case, the delusion must be the result of disease of the mind rendering him incapable of reason with respect to the object of the delusion, that is, it must be an unreasoning belief in the existence of facts, and not merely an erroneous belief based upon reasoning and reflection.15 The delusion must also be connected 8 Bolling v. State, 54 Ark. 588, 16 S. W. 658. 9 State v. Lyons, 113 La. 959, 37 So. 890. 10 McNaghten's Case, 10 Clark & F. 200, 1 Car. & K. 130, 8 Scott N. R. 595. 11 People v. Hubert, 119 Cal. 216, 51 Pac. 329, 63 Am. St. Rep. 72. 12 People v. Taylor, 138 N. Y. 398, 34 N. E. 275. 13 Kentucky. Fain v. Com., 78 Ky. 183, 39 Am. Rep. 213. Louisiana. State v. Lyons, 113 La. 959, 37 So. 890. Massachusetts. Com. v. Rogers, 7 Metc. 500, 41 Am. Dec. 458. New York. People v. Pine, 2 Barb. 566. Pennsylvania. Com. v. Wireback, 190 Pa. St. 138, 42 Atl. 542, 70 Am. St. Rep. 625. Texas. Witty v. State, 75 Tex. Cr. 440, 171 S. W. 229; Montgomery v. State, 68 Tex. Cr. 78, 151 S. W. 813; Merritt v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. 70, 45 S. W. 21. England. McNaghten's Case, 10 Clark & F. 200, 1 Car. & K. 130, 8 14 Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. 577, 2 So. 854, 60 Am. Rep. 193, overruling Boswell v. State, 63 Ala. 307, 35 Am. Rep. 20; Ryan v. People, 60 Colo. 425, 153 Pac. 756, L. R. A. 1917 F 646, Ann. Cas. 1917 C 605; State v. Keerl, 29 Mont. 508, 75 Pac. 362, 101 Am. St. Rep. 579; State v. Jones, 50 N. H. 369, 9 Am. Rep. 242. And see Merritt v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. 70, 45 S. W. 21. As to the rule in Arkansas, see note 6, supra. The defendant is not responsible where he killed the deceased as a result of an insane delusion that the latter was a witch and that he had a right to kill witches. Hotema v. United States, 186 U. S. 413, 46 L. Ed. 1225, 22 Sup. Ct. 895. 15 Porter v. State, 140 Ala. 87, 37 So. 81; Gunter v. State, 83 Ala. 96, 3 So. 600; State v. Lewis, 20 Nev. 333, 22 Pac. 241. Α person who kills another in the belief that the latter is a witch and with the act in the relation of cause and effect. Delusions or partial insanity not in any way connected with the crime charged do not constitute a defense.16 And partial insanity or an insane delusion hence that he has a right to kill him is not responsible if such belief is the product of a diseased brain, but is responsible if such belief is not the product of an insane delusion but simply an erroneous conclusion or opinion of an insane mind. Hotema v. United States, 186 U. S. 413, 46 L. Ed. 1225, 22 Sup. Ct. 895. This distinction was brought out with admirable clearness by Judge Cox in his charge to the jury in the Guiteau case. An opinion, he said, however erroneous or absurd, formed upon reasoning and reflection, or examination of evidence, is not an insane delusion, and never exempts a man from responsibility for his acts. If a man, from mental disease, should believe that God had appeared to him, and commanded him to kill his child as a sacrifice, this would be an insane delusion, and, if he should sacrifice his child in obedience to the supposed command of the Almighty, he would not be responsible for the homicide; but if a man, by reading newspapers and by reasoning, however absurdly, should come to the conclusion that the good of the country required the removal of the presi dent, and should assassinate him, he would be guilty of murder. "The important thing is that an insane delusion is never the result of reason ing and reflection. It is not generated by them, and it cannot be dispelled by them. A man may reason himself, and be reasoned by others, into absurd opinions, and may be persuaded into impractical schemes and vicious resolutions, but he cannot be reasoned or persuaded into insanity or insane delusions. Whenever convictions are founded on evidence, the law requires them to reason correctly, as far as their practical duties are concerned. When they have the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong, they are bound to do it. Opinions, properly so called, i. e., beliefs resulting from reasoning, reflection, or examination of evidence, afford no protection against the penal consequences of crime. A man may reason himself into a conviction of the expediency and patriotic character of political assassination, but to allow him to find shelter behind that belief, as an insane delusion, would be monstrous.'' Guiteau's Case, 10 Fed. 161. * * * 16 United States. United States v. Ridgeway, 31 Fed. 144; Guiteau's Case, 10 Fed. 161. Arkansas. Smith v. State, 55 Ark. 259, 18 S. W. 237. California. People v. Coffman, 24 Cal. 230. Delaware. State v. Danby, Houst. Cr. Cas. 166. Georgia. Allams v. State, 123 Ga. 500, 51 S. E. 506; Carter v. State, 2 Ga. App. 254, 58 S. E. 532. Iowa. State v. Hockett, 70 Iowa 442, 30 N. W. 742; State v. Geddis, 42 Iowa 264; State v. Stickley, 41 Iowa 232. Minnesota. State v. Gut, 13 Minn. 341; aff'd 9 Wall. (U. S.) 35, 19 L. Ed. 573. will not relieve a person from responsibility if he understands the nature and character of the act in question and knows that it is wrong,17 and if he has the ability to choose between right and wrong, Mississippi. Ford v. State, 73 Miss. 734, 19 So. 665, 35 L. R. A. 117; Bovard v. State, 30 Miss. 600. Missouri. State v. Huting, 21 Mo. 464. Nebraska. Schwartz v. State, 65 Neb. 196, 91 N. W. 190. New York. Freeman v. People, 4 Denio 9, 47 Am. Dec. 216. Tennessee. Wilcox V. State, 94 Tenn. 106, 28 S. W. 312. Vermont. Doherty v. State, 73 Vt. 380, 50 Atl. 1113. Virginia. Dejarnette v. Com. 75 Va. 867. West Virginia. State v. Maier, 36 W. Va. 757, 15 S. E. 991. England. McNaghten's Case, 10 Clark & F. 200, 1 Car. & K. 130, 8 Scott N. R. 595. The act must be the consequence of the delusion, and must have been caused by it and nothing else. Hopps v. People, 31 Ill. 391, 83 Am. Dec. 231. A person may be partially insane, or insane upon one or several subjects, and yet be perfectly sane upon all other subjects, and legally responsible for a crime committed by him. People v. Willard, 150 Cal. 543, 89 Pac. 124. 17 United States. United States v. Faulkner, 35 Fed. 730. California. People v. Willard, 150 Cal. 543, 89 Pac. 124; People v. Coffman, 24 Cal. 230. Florida, Davis v. State, 44 Fla. 32, 32 So. 822. Georgia. Roberts v. State, 3 Ga. 310. Illinois. Hopps v. People, 31 Ill. 391, 83 Am. Dec. 231. Kansas. State v. Arnold, 79 Kan. 533, 100 Pac. 64. Massachusetts. Com. v. Rogers, 7 Metc. 500, 41 Am. Dec. 458. Minnesota. State v. Gut, 13 Minn. 341, aff'd 9 Wall. (U. S.) 35, 19 L. Ed. 573. Missouri. State v. Paulsgrove, 203 Mo. 193, 101 S. W. 27. New York. People v. Pine, 2 Barb. 566. Texas. Witty v. State, 75 Tex. Cr. 440, 171 S. W. 229; Montgomery v. State, 68 Tex. Cr. 78, 151 S. W. 813; Sartin v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. 571, 103 S. W. 875; Riley v. State (Tex. Cr.), 44 S. W. 498. It has been said that the rule as to partial insanity or delusions is "only another way of stating that there can be no crime where there is a mental incapacity to distinguish between right and wrong; for, though delusions as to particular matters frequently exist in minds which are perfectly rational upon all other subjects, yet, if the delusion be so fixed and vivid as to make the imaginary seem real, there must be upon that subject a total incapacity to distinguish between right and wrong, since, the entire relation between the victim of the delusion and its unconscious subject being mentally perverted, there can be no proper standard of right and wrong in the diseased mind. That which to the rest of the world seems right is to him the most flagrant wrong, and vice versa."' Cunningham v. State, 56 Miss. 269, 21 Am. Rep. 360. "If a man," said Judge Cox, in his charge to the jury in Guiteau's case, is under an insane delusion that another is attempting his life, and kills him in self-defense, he does not know that he is committing an unnecessary in jurisdictions where an insane irresistible impulse is recognized as a defense.18 § 120. Insane irresistible impulse. Whether or not an insane irresistible impulse to do an act exempts one from responsibility, when he has the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong, and does know, when he does the act, that it is wrong, is a question upon which the courts do not agree.19 Many of the courts refuse to recognize this condition of the mind as a ground of exemption, but limit the test to the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong as to the particular act, and hold that a man who has such capacity is fully responsible, though he was impelled to do the act by an uncontrollable or irresistible impulse which he could not resist.20 But homicide. If a man insanely believes that he has a command from the Almighty to kill, it is difficult to understand how such a man can know that it is wrong for him to do it. A man may have some other insane delusion, which would be quite consistent with a knowledge that such an act is wrong, such as that he had received an injury,—and he might kill in revenge for it, knowing that it would be wrong." Guiteau's Case, 10 Fed. 161. 18 Hankins v. State, 133 Ark. 38, 201 S. W. 832, L. R. A. 1918 D 784; State v. Windsor, 5 Harr. 512 (5 Del.); People v. Lowhone, 292 Ill. 32, 126 N. E. 620; s. c., 296 Ill. 391, 129 N. E. 781. And see § 120, infra. 19 See Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. 577, 2 So. 854, 60 Am. Rep. 193; Hankins v. State, 133 Ark. 38, 201 S. W. 832, L. R. A. 1918 D 784; and State v. Lewis, 20 Nev. 333, 22 Pac. 241, reviewing the authorities, and the other cases cited in the following notes. This character of insanity is variously styled moral, or emotional, or impulsive, or paroxysmal insanity. Hall v. State, 78 Fla. 420, 83 So. 513; Cochran v. State, 65 Fla. 91, 61 So. 187; Smith v. State, 95 Miss. 786, 49 So. 945, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 461, Ann. Cas. 1912 A 23; Cunningham v. State, 56 Miss. 269, 21 Am. Rep. 360; Schwartz v. State, 65 Neb. 196, 91 N. W. 190; State v. Terry, 173 N. C. 761, 92 S. E. 154; State v. Potts, 100 N. C. 458, 6 S. E. 657; State v. Levelle, 34 S. C. 120, 13 S. E. 319, 27 Am. St. Rep. 799. 20 California. People v. Morisawa, 180 Cal. 148, 179 Pac. 888; People v. Methever, 132 Cal. 326, 64 Pac. 481; People v. Owens, 123 Cal. 482, 56 Pac. 251; People v. Hubert, 119 Cal. 216, 51 Pac. 329, 63 Am. St. Rep. 72; People v. Hoin, 62 Cal. 120, 45 Am. Rep. 651. Florida. Hall v. State, 78 Fla. 420, 83 So. 513; Cochran v. State, 65 Fla. 91, 61 So. 187; Davis v. State, 44 Fla. 32, 32 So. 822. Kansas. State v. O'Neil, 51 Kan. 651, 33 Pac. 287, 24 L. R. A. 555; State v. Mowry, 37 Kan. 369, 15 Pac. 282. Maine. State v. Knight, 95 Me. 467, 50 Atl. 276, 55 L. R. A. 373; State v. Lawrence, 57 Me. 574. Maryland. Spencer V. State, 69 Md. 28, 13 Atl. 809. Minnesota. State V. Scott, 41 Minn. 365, 43 N. W. 62. Mississippi. Smith V. State, 95 Miss. 786, 49 So. 945, 27 L. R. A. even under this rule an uncontrollable impulse springing from mental disease existing to so high a degree that for the time it overrules. the reason, judgment and conscience, is an excuse, since under such circumstances it is utterly impossible for a person to distinguish between right and wrong.21 Other courts, while recognizing the right (N. S.) 461, Ann. Cas. 1912 A 23; Cunningham v. State, 56 Miss. 269, 31 Am. Rep. 360. Missouri. State v. Riddle, 245 Mo. 451, 150 S. W. 1044, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 150, Ann. Cas. 1914 A 884; State v. Soper, 148 Mo. 217, 49 S. W. 1007; State v. Miller, 111 Mo. 542, 20 S. W. 243; State v. Pagels, 92 Mo. 300, 4 S. W. 931. Nebraska. Schwartz v. State, 65 Neb. 196, 91 N. W. 190; Hawe v. State, 11 Neb. 537, 10 N. W. 452, 38 Am. Rep. 375. Nevada. State v. Lewis, 20 Nev. 333, 22 Pac. 241. New Jersey. State v. Carrigan, N. J. L. 111 Atl. 927; aff'g 93 N. J. L. 268, 108 Atl. 315; Mackin v. State, 59 N. J. L. 495, 36 Atl. 1040; Genz v. State, 59 N. J. L. 488, 37 Atl. 69, 59 Am. St. Rep. 619. New York. People v. Schmidt, 216 N. Y. 324, 110 N. E. 945, L. R. A. 1916 D 519, Ann. Cas. 1916 A 978; People v. Taylor, 138 N. Y. 398, 34 N. E. 275; People v. Carpenter, 102 N. Y. 238, 6 N. E. 584, aff'g 38 Hun 490; Flanagan v. People, 52 N. Y. 467, 11 Am. Rep. 731; Freeman v. People, 4 Denio 9, 47 Am. Dec. 216. State v. Terry, 173 E. 154; State v. 719, 87 S. E. 50, North Carolina. N. C. 761, 92 S. Cooper, 170 N. C. 81, 118 Pac. 195; State v. Lauth, 46 Ore. 342, 80 Pac. 660, 114 Am. St. Rep. 873. South Carolina. State v. Levelle, 34 S. C. 120, 13 S. E. 319, 27 Am. St. Rep. 799; State v. Alexander, 30 S. C. 74, 8 S. E. 440, 14 Am. St. Rep. 879; State v. Bundy, 24 S. C. 439, 58 Am. Rep. 263. Tennessee. Wilcox V. State, 94 Tenn. 106, 28 S. W. 312. Texas. Carter v. State, 12 Tex. 500, 62 Am. Dec. 539; Kirby v. State, 68 Tex. Cr. 63, 150 S. W. 455; Roberts v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. 580, 150 S. W. 627; Thomas v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. 293, 116 S. W. 600; Cannon v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. 467, 56 S. W. 351; Leache v. State, 22 Tex. App. 279, 3 S. W. 539, 58 Am. Rep. 638; Williams v. State, 7 Tex. App. 163. Compare Zimmerman v. State, 85 Tex. Cr. 630, 215 S. W. 101. Washington. State V. Craig, 52 Wash. 66, 100 Pac. 167. West Virginia. State v. Cook, 69 W. Va. 717, 72 S. E. 1025; State v. Harrison, 36 W. Va. 729, 15 S. E. 982, 18 L. R. A. 224. Wisconsin. Aborn V. State, 143 Wis. 249, 126 N. W. 737, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 966, reviewing and distinguishing earlier Wisconsin cases. England. Reg. v. Stokes, 3 Car. & K. 185; McNaghten's Case, 10 Clark & F. 200, 1 Car. & K. 130, 8 Scott N. R. 595; Reg. v. Barton, Cox C. C. 275; Reg. v. Haynes, 1 Fost. & F. 666. As to kleptomania see § 126, infra. 21 Smith v. State, 95 Miss. 786, 49 So. 945, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 461, |