State v. . Rippy

*756 Shepherd, J. — after'stating facts: The testimony in this case presented several phases of defence, each of which should have been clearly and. distinctly stated to the jury, with proper explanations. State v. Mathews, 78 N. C., 537. There was testimony tending to show hereditary insanity; permanent insanity produced by long and continued use of alcoholic spirits, delirium, tremens, and temporary insanity or frenzy caused by an overdose of morphine administered as a medicine. The charge of his Honor on the question of insanity was very general, the only one of the above theories of defence mentioned therein being that of delirium tremens. We think that the instructions should have given equal prominence to all of the theories of defence legitimately arising on the testimony, and that although the latter part of the charge was sufficiently comprehensive to embrace every view, it may not be unreasonable to infer that the deliberations of the jury were, in a.measure, confined to the particular phase of defence mentioned by his Honor. But however this may be, we are clearly of the opinion that there was error in the refusal of the Court to give the sixth instruction prayed for by the prisoner. This instruction was as follows: “That if the jury shall believe that the prisoner, at the time of the homicide, was in a state of mind that rendered him incapable of comprehending the criminal character of his act, and that his incapacity was the result of an overdose of a drug he had taken, then they should acquit.” If the homicide was committed while the prisoner was in a frenzy, produced by an overdose of morphine administered to him as medicine under the circumstances detailed by his brother, it would be a complete defence. 1 Rus. Crimes, 12; 1 Hale P. C., 32; 3 Greenleaf Ev., Sec. 6; Rogers v. State, 33 Ind., 543. *757 Notwithstanding the special prayer for instructions upon this point, which was so fully presented by the testimony, and which was of such vital importance to the prisoner, the Court failed to specially instruct upon any other theory of defence than that of delirium tremens, leaving the other theories to be considered under a general instruction, which was as follows: “Insanity is a complete defence to all criminal acts committed while under its influence, whether such insanity be permanent or temporary, and from whatever cause produced.” The substitution of a general proposition of law, however correct it may be, for particular instructions asked, has been condemned by this Court. State v. Dunlop, 65 N. C., 293; State v. Mathews, 78 N. C., 537. In the latter case, Judge RodhaN, in delivering the opinion of the Court, says: “We think a Judge is required, in the interest of human life and liberty, to state clearly the particular issues arising on the evidence, and on which the jury are to pass, and instruct them as to the law applicable to every state of the fact, which, upon the evidence, they may reasonably find to be the true one.” Nelson v. State, Swan, Tenn., 237. As we are of the opinion, for the reasons given, that a new trial should be granted, it is unnecessary to consider the other exceptions which were argued by the intelligent young counsel who appeared for the prisoner. Error.