sanity,30 unconnected with disease of the mind, will excuse crime. So a person will not be excused for crime because he has become so morally depraved that his conscience has ceased to control or influence his actions.31 And mere frenzy, excitement, or ungovernable passion, resulting from motives of hatred, anger, jealousy, disappointment, revenge, or the like, is not insanity, and is not an excuse for crime Georgia. Spann v. State, 47 Ga. 553; Choice v. State, 31 Ga. 424. Indiana. Goodwin v. State, 96 Ind. 550. Kentucky. It is no excuse that the defendant's moral perceptions lead him to believe that there is no wrong in violating a particular statute. Thompson v. Com., 155 Ky. 333, 159 S. W. 829. Louisiana. State v. Lyons, 113 La. 959, 37 So. 890. Maryland. Spencer v. State, 69 Md. 28, 13 Atl. 809. New York. People v. Carlin, 194 N. Y. 448, 87 N. E. 805; People v. Farmer, 194 N. Y. 251, 87 N. E. 457. Pennsylvania. Taylor v. Com., 109 Pa. St. 262. Texas. Harrison v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. 164, 69 S. W. 500; Leache v. State, 22 Tex. App. 279, 3 S. W. 539, 58 Am. Rep. 638. Wyoming. Flanders v. State, 24 Wyo. 81, 156 Pac. 39, 1121. Construing the language of the court literally, moral insanity seems to have been regarded as a defense in Scott v. Com., 4 Metc. (Ky.) 227, 83 Am. Dec. 461, but there can be little doubt that the court meant insane irrésistible impulse. In a Connecticut case it was said that moral insanity may reduce a homieide from murder in the first degree to murder in the second degree. Andersen v. State, 43 Conn. 514, 21 Am. Rep. 669. But see United States v. Lee, 4 Mackey (15 D. C.) 489, 54 Am. Rep. 293. And see § 117, supra. An uncontrollable or irresistible im pulse is sometimes referred to as a species of moral insanity. See § 120, supra. 30 Cawley v. State, 133 Ala. 128, 32 So. 227; Walker v. State, 91 Ala. 76, 9 So. 87; Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. 577, 2 So. 854, 60 Am. Rep. 193; Boswell v. State, 63 Ala. 307, 35 Am. Rep. 20; Bell v. State, 120 Ark. 530, 180 S. W. 186. Transitory frenzy. Com. v. Renzo, 216 Pa. 147, 65 Atl. 30. 31 United States. Guiteau's Case, 10 Fed. 161. Arkansas. Bell v. State, 120 Ark. 530, 180 S. W. 186; Green v. State, 64 Ark. 523, 43 S. W. 973. California. People v. Kerrigan, 73 Cal. 222, 14 Pac. 849. Colorado. Ryan v. People, 60 Colo. 425, 153 Pac. 756, L. R. A. 1917 F 646, Ann. Cas. 1917 C 605. Georgia. Spann v. State, 47 Ga. 553. Indiana. Goodwin v. State, 96 Ind. 550. Kentucky. Thompson v. Com., 155 Ky. 333, 159 S. W. 829. New York. People v. Schmidt, 216 N. Y. 324, 110 N. E. 945, L. R. A. 1916 D 519, Ann. Cas. 1916 A 978. Pennsylvania. Taylor v. Com., 109 Pa. St. 262. Wyoming. Flanders v. State, 24 Wyo. 81, 156 Pac. 39, 1121. "Depravity of character and abandoned habits are not in themselves evidence of insanity." People v. Lowhone, 296 Ill. 391, 129 N. E. 781; People v. Spencer, 264 Ill. 124, 106 N. E. 219. in any jurisdiction.32 It has been held, however, that mental disease or temporary dethronement of reason, otherwise sufficient, will exempt the defendant from responsibility though brought about by his own fault in yielding to anger or passion.33 34 § 122. Dementia præcox. Dementia præcox has been defined to be a disease characterized by progressive mental weakness tending to dementia, occurring in adolescents or young adults. It is not in itself a defense in those states where capacity to distinguish between right and wrong is held to be the sole test of criminal responsibility.3 35 32 Alabama. James v. State, 193 Ala. 55, 69 So. 569, Ann. Cas. 1918 B 119; Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. 577, 2 So. 854, 60 Am. Rep. 193; Barnett v. State (Ala.), 39 So. 778. Arkansas. Bell v. State, 120 Ark. 530, 180 S. W. 186; Dow v. State, 77 Ark. 464, 92 S. W. 28; Green v. State, 64 Ark. 523, 43 S. W. 973; Smith v. State, 55 Ark. 259, 18 S. W. 237; Bolling v. State, 54 Ark. 588, 16 S. W. 658; Williams v. State, 50 Ark. 511, 9 S. W. 5. Colorado. Ryan v. People, 60 Colo. 425, 153 Pac. 756, L. R. A. 1917 F 646, Ann. Cas. 1917 C 605. Georgia. Carter v. State, 2 Ga. App. 254, 58 S. E. 532. Indiana. Plake v. State, 121 Ind. 433, 23 N. E. 273, 16 Am. St. Rep. 408; Goodwin v. State, 96 Ind. 550; Sanders v. State, 94 Ind. 147; Guetig v. State, 66 Ind. 94, 32 Am. Rep. 99. Iowa. State v. Newherter, 46 Iowa 88; State v. Stickley, 41 Iowa 232; State v. Felter, 25 Iowa 67. Kentucky. Maulding v. Com., 172 Ky. 370, 189 S. W. 251; Bast v. Com., 124 Ky. 747, 99 S. W. 978. Louisiana. State v. Lyons, 113 La. 959, 37 So. 890. Michigan. People v. Durfee, 62 Mich. 487, 29 N. W. 109; People v. Fairchild, 48 Mich. 31, 11 N. W. 776; People v. Finley, 38 Mich. 482. Mississippi. Garner v. State, 112 Miss. 317, 73 So. 50. Missouri. State v. Morris, 263 Mo. 339, 172 S. W. 603. New York. People v. Carlin, 194 N. Y. 448, 87 N. E. 805; People v. Foy, 138 N. Y. 664, 34 N. E. 396. Oregon. State v. Hassing, 60 Ore. 81, 118 Pac. 195; State v. Lauth, 46 Ore. 342, 80 Pac. 660, 114 Am. St. Rep. 873; State v. Murray, 11 Ore. 413, 5 Pac. 55. Pennsylvania. Com. v. Renzo, 216 Pa. 147, 65 Atl. 30; Com. v. Eckerd, 174 Pa. St. 137, 34 Atl. 305; Lynch v. Com., 77 Pa. St. 205. West Virginia. State v. Cook, 69 W. Va. 717, 72 S. E. 1025. Wyoming. Flanders v. State, 24 Wyo. 81, 156 Pac. 39, 1121. 33 Duthey v. State, 131 Wis. 178, 111 N. W. 222, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1032. 34 Stedman's Med. Dict. The Century Dictionary defines it as "a form of insanity occurring at puberty." See Babey v. Com., 169 Ky. 735, 185 S. W. 81. § 123. Idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons. An idiot is one who has had no understanding from his nativity, a natural fool, or fool from birth.36 Imbecility is a form of weak-mindedness, either congenital or resulting from arrested development of the brain, in which the mind is capable of receiving ideas and of profiting to a certain extent by instruction, but is not capable of being brought to a healthy, normal standard of intellect.87 It has been said that it is idiocy in a minor degree.38 Cretinism is a species of idiocy, which results in an arrest of bodily growth and mental development. The subjects of the disease, called cretins, are dwarfed idiots.89 A moron is a feeble-minded person of higher grade than an imbecile.40 An idiot is exempt from criminal responsibility.41 The responsibility of an imbecile is to be determined by the tests used to determine the responsibility of insane persons generally,42 as the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong, 48 or the capacity to distinguish 361 Bl. Com. 302; Stewart Legal Medicine, 363; Battle v. State, 105 Ga. 703, 32 S. E. 160; Francke v. His Wife, 29 La. Ann. 302; Com. V. Heath, 11 Gray (Mass.) 303; People v. Crosswell, 13 Mich. 427, 87 Am. Dec. 774; In re Anderson, 132 N. C. 243, 43 S. E. 649. Idiotism is total want of the reasoning powers from malconformation of the organ of thought at the time of birth. People v. Lake, 2 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 215. It is that condition in which a person has never had from birth the least glimmering of reason. It is not the condition of a deranged mind, but that of a total absence of all mind. Owings' Case, 1 Bland (Md.) 370, 17 Am. Dec. 311. An idiot has no power of mind whatever. Bicknell v. Spear, 38 N. Y. Misc. 389, 77 N. Y. Supp. 920. 37 Francke v. His Wife, 29 La. Ann. 302; State v. Palmer, 161 Mo. 152, 61 S. W. 651. An imbecile is "one whose mental unsoundness arises from defective development, but that defect originates after birth and is therefore less com 38 Francke V. His Wife, 29 La. Ann. 302. 39 Stedman's Med. Dict.; Century Dict. 40 One who does not advance beyond the Binet age of 12 years. Stedman's Med. Dict. And see People v. Oxnam, 170 Cal. 211, 149 Pac. 165. 41 Battle v. State, 105 Ga. 703, 32 S. E. 160; Com. v. Heath, 11 Gray (Mass.) 303. 42 State v. Palmer, 161 Mo. 152, 61 S. W. 651; State v. Kelsie, 93 Vt. 450, 108 Atl. 391. 43 State v. Palmer, 161 Mo. 152, 61 S. W. 651. Imbecility will not exempt from responsibility where there is capacity. between right and wrong and to choose between them. Mere weak ness or feebleness of mind is not a defense to a criminal charge unless it is of such a nature as to make a person insane or of unsound mind within the ordinary tests of responsibility.4 45 § 124. Epileptics. Proof of epilepsy does not of itself necessarily establish insanity as a matter of law or fact. Epilepsy may cause insanity, but does not constitute it.46 That the accused was an epi to distinguish between right and wrong. People v. Keyes, 178 Cal. 794, 175 Pac. 6; People v. Oxnam, 170 Cal. 211, 149 Pac. 165. 44 State v. Kelsie, 93 Vt. 450, 108 Atl. 391. 45 District of Columbia. Travers v. United States, 6 App. Cas. 450. Georgia. Carter v. State, 2 Ga. App. 254, 58 S. E. 532. Indiana. Conway v. State, 118 Ind. 482, 21 N. E. 285; Wartena v. State, 105 Ind. 445, 5 N. E. 20. Kansas. State v. Flowers, 58 Kan. 702, 50 Pac. 938. Kentucky. Maulding v. Com., 172 Ky. 370, 189 S. W. 251; Fitzpatrick v. Com., 81 Ky. 357, 5 Ky. L. Rep. 363. Missouri. State v. Palmer, 161 Mo. 152, 61 S. W. 651. New Jersey. State v. Schilling, N. J. L. 112 Atl. 400. New York. People v. Farmer, 194 N. Y. 251, 87 N. E. 457; Patterson v. People, 46 Barb. 625. Vermont. Rogers v. State, 77 Vt. 454, 61 Atl. 489. England. Reg. v. Higginson, 1 Car. & K. 129. A person is not relieved of responsibility because he is abnormally deficient in will power and of retarded mental development, since he may still be fully conscious of the criminal character and consequences of his act. Com. v. Cooper, 219 Mass. 1, 106 N. E. 545. "While a slight departure from a well-balanced mind may be pronounced insanity in medical science, yet such a rule cannot be recognized in the administration of the law when a person is on trial for the commission of a high crime. The just and necessary protection of society requires the recognition of a rule which demands a greater degree of insanity to exempt from punishment." Per Chief Justice Mercur in Taylor v. Com., 109 Pa. St. 262, 271. Mere oddity or hypochondria is not insanity. State v. Shippey, 10 Minn. 223, 88 Am. Dec. 70; Hawe v. State, 11 Neb. 537, 10 N. W. 452, 38 Am. Rep. 375. 46 People v. Gambacorta, 197 N. Y. 181, 90 N. E. 809, 18 Ann. Cas. 425; Zimmerman v. State, 85 Tex. Cr. 630, 215 S. W. 101; Oborn v. State, 143 Wis. 249, 126 N. W. 737, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 966. And see Schissler v. State, 122 Wis. 365, 99 N. W. 593. The mere fact that a person is an epileptic does not excuse him, but it is only when, because of an attack of the disease, he is unconscious of what he is doing, that he is not responsible criminally. People v. Magnus, 92 N. Y. Misc. 80, 155 N. Y. Supp. 1013. The law does not raise an immediate presumption of insanity from epilepsy, but leaves the insanity to be proved as any other defense. Com. v. Snyder, 224 Pa. 526, 73 Atl. 910; Laros v. Com., 84 Pa. St. 200. leptic may be shown, however, and such proof may bear circumstantially on his mental condition to the extent of establishing insanity.47 And an epileptic is not responsible for acts committed by him during an attack of the disease which renders him unconscious of what he is doing.48 Whether he was afflicted with epilepsy, and, if so, whether the affliction was a mental disease or had impaired his mind sufficiently to render him unable to distinguish between right and wrong, are matters of fact to be established by evidence.49 § 125. Deaf-mutes. The fact that a person is a deaf-mute does nct of itself relieve him from responsibility for crime, but is merely a circumstance to be considered in connection with the other evidence in determining his mental capacity.50 Formerly such persons were presumed to be idiots, but this is no longer true.51 § 126. Kleptomania. Kleptomania is generally defined to be an irresistible impulse to steal.52 Some of the books regard it as a morbid propensity to steal, whether consciously or unconsciously.5 It has also been said to be "a weakening of the will power to such an extent as to leave the afflicted one powerless to control his impulse to appropriate the personal property of others, without regard to whether such impulse is inspired by avarice, greed, or idle fancy." 54 47 Oborn v. State, 143 Wis. 249, 126 N. W. 737, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 966. 48 People v. Gambacorta, 197 N. Y. 181, 90 N. E. 809, 18 Ann. Cas. 425; People v. Magnus, 92 N. Y. Misc. 80, 155 N. Y. Supp. 1013; Zimmerman v. State, 85 Tex. Cr. 630, 215 S. W. 101. 49 Oborn v. State, 143 Wis. 249, 126 N. W. 737, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 966. 50 State v. Draper, 1 Houst. Cr. Cas. (Del.) 291; Belcher v. Com., 165 Ky. 649, 177 S. W. 455, Ann. Cas. 1917 B 238. And see State v. Harris, 53 N. C. 136, 78 Am. Dec. 272; Rex v. Gov. ernor of Stafford Prison [1909] 2 K. B. 81; Rex v. Dyson, 7 C. & P. 305; Rex v. Pritchard, 7 C. & P. 303. 51 Blackstone says that a man born deaf, dumb and blind is looked upon by the law as in the same state as an idiot. 1 Bl. Com. 304. See State v. Howard, 118 Mo. 127, 24 S. W. 41. 52 State v. McCullough, 114 Iowa 532, 87 N. W. 503, 55 L. R. A. 378, 89 Am. St. Rep. 382; State v. Riddle, 245 Mo. 451, 150 S. W. 1044, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 150, Ann. Cas. 1914 A 884; Lowe v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. 224, 70 S. W. 206. It has been called "the disease of stealing." State v. Reidell, 9 Houst. (Del.) 470, 14 Atl. 550. As to the nature and symptoms of the disease see Harris v. State, 18 Tex. App. 287; Looney v. State, 10 Tex. App. 520, 38 Am. Rep. 646. 53 See Lewis v. Lewis, 44 Minn. 124, 46 N. W. 323, 9 L. R. A. 505, 20 Am. St. Rep. 559; Lowe v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. 224, 70 S. W. 206. 54 State v. McCullough, 114 Iowa |