State v. Miller

<p>CRIMINAL LAW.</p> <p>Seney, Day and Price, XT.</p> <p>11. Validity of Affidavit and Wabkant in Which the Accused is Described by Initials Only.</p> <p>Wliere an affidavit charging a person with the commission of a crime, describes the accused by initials merely, the first or Christian name being omitted, and a warrant is issued upon such affidavit, also describing the accused by initials merely: Held, that such warrant is not void for that reason, the same being regular in form in all respects to constitute it a 'valid warrant for the arrest of the accused, and the officer having such warrant to execute is clothed with the authority to make the arrest.</p> <p>2. Plea of Misnomer.</p> <p>In criminal procedure at common law, if a party is indicted by any other than his true name, he may for plea in abatement of the action, say it is not his true name — that there is a misnomer in the indictment; but he must first give in such plea his true name.</p> <p>3. Consideration of the Defense of Insanity in a Criminal Case.</p> <p>The defense of insanity in a criminal case is a meritorious defense when made out, and should receive full consideration by the court and jury.</p> <p>4. Burden of Establishing the Insanity of the Accused Rests Upon the Defense.</p> <p>Where insanity ,is interposed to excuse the taking of human life, such defense must be established by a preponderance of the weight of the evidence, and the burden of establishing the insanity of the accused affirmatively to the satisfaction of the jury, in the trial of a criminal case, rests upon the defense.</p> <p>5. Right of Officer to Resort to Strategy in Effecting an Arrest.</p> <p>In attempting the arrest of one accused with the commission of a crime, who is found expecting the officer and is armed with deadly weapons to resist the arrest, it is the right of such officer to use necessary strategy to disarm the accused before producing the warrant.</p> <p>6. Charge of Court as to the Consideration of Expert Evidence on the Question of Insanity.</p> <p>Where the codrt in charging the jury regarding expert evidence on the question of insanity, told the jury to receive such evidence with caution, and this admonition occurred twice in this branch of the charge: Held. that the instruction of the court applied to both shies and that the character of the evidence pro and con, furnished good reasons for the caution, and, therefore, the court committed no error.</p>