There are all
grades and degrees of "knowledge," and it is more than
probable that there is a state of mind which I have heard an
astute expert call upon the witness stand "an insane
knowledge," and equally obvious that there may be "imperfect"
nor "incomplete knowledge," where the victim sees "through a
glass darkly." Certainly it seems far from fair to interpret
the test of responsibility to cover a condition where the
accused may have had a hazy or dream-like realization that his
act was technically contrary to the law, and even more
dangerous to make it exclude one who was simply unable to
"judge calmly and reasonably" of his proposed action, a
doctrine which could almost be invoked by any one who
committed homicide in a state of anger.
*"General View of the Criminal Law," p. 80.
Ordinarily the word is not defined at all and the befuddled
juryman is left to his own devices in determining what
significance he shall attach not only to this word but to the
test as a whole.
Pages:
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304