within it a result contrary to the laws of this state, does an act which in its natural and usual course results in an act or effect contrary to its laws.

Ignorance does not excuse. Hamilton v. People, 57 Barb. 625. Criminal intent necessary to constitute breach of penal statute. Sturgess v. Maitland, Anth. N. P. 208. See Baker v. Richardson, 1 Cow. 77; Morris v. People, 3 Den. 381. Ignorance of penal statute is no excuse. Smith v. Brown, 1 Wend. 231. That defendant was illegally apprehended in foreign county, no objection to jurisdiction. People v. Rowe, 1 Sheld. 81. Subs. 4, 5; People v. Wright, 2 Cai. 213; People v. Gardner, 2 Johns. 477; People v. Schenck, id. 479; McCullough's case, 2C. H. Rec. 45. See People v. Adams, 3 Den. 190; S. C., 1 N. Y. 173: People v. Bork, 91 N. Y. 5. Same act may be punishable under U. S. Stat. Abbott v. People, 75 N. Y. 602.

Jurisdiction. People v. Lyon, 1 N. Y. Cr. 400; 99 N. Y. 219; Adams v. People, 1 id. 173; People v. Wilson, 3 Park. 199; People v. Marine Court, 6 Hun, 214; People v. Lane, 1 Edm. Cases, 116; People v. Marra, 4 N. Y. Cr. 304; Western, etc., Co. v. Kilderhouse, 87 N. Y. 435; Coin. v. White, 123 Mass. 430; 25 Am. Rep. 116; Langdon v. N. Y., etc., R. Co., 8 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 405; Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. S. 265; Murphy v. English, 64 How. 362; People v. Bliven, 112 N. Y. 79.

See §§ 185, 540, 676, post.

§ 17. Presumption of responsibility for acts. - A person is presumed to be responsible for his acts. The burden of proving that he is irresponsible is upon the accused person, except as otherwise prescribed in this Code.

O'Brien v. People, 48
Sellick's case, i с. Н.
That one intends the
People v. Foster, 50

Responsible for natural consequences. People v. Adams, 16 Hun, 549. Sanity is presumed. Walter v. People, 32 N. Y. 147; Barb. 274. Insanity must be affirmatively established. Rec. 185; People v. Robinson, 1 Park. 646; 2 id. 235. necessary consequences of his acts, is also presumed. N. Y. 609; People v. Conroy, 97 id. 62, aff'g 33 Hun, 119.

§ 18. Child under seven years. - A child under the age of seven years is not capable of committing crime.

Moebus v. Herrman, 108 N. Y. 353; Stone v. Dry D., etc., R. Co., 115 id. 104; S. C., 23 N. Y. State Rep'r, 551; Kunz v. City of Troy. 104 N. Y. 344; Mangan v. Brooklyn R. Co., 38 id. 455; Fallon v. Central Park, etc., Co., 49 id. 255; McMahon v. Mayor, etc., 33 id. 642; Wendell v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 91 id. 420.

§ 19. Child between seven and twelve. - A child of the age of seven years, and under the age of twelve years, is presumed to be incapable of crime, but the presumption may be removed by proof that he had sufficient capacity to understand the act or neglect charged against him and to know its wrongfulness. Whenever in any legal proceedings it becomes necessary to determine the age of a child, the child may be produced for personal inspection, to enable the magistrate, court or jury, to determine the age thereby; and the court or magistrate may direct an examination by one or more physicians, whose opinion shall also be competent evidence upon the question of age. A copy of the record of baptism of any child in any parish register, or register kept in a church, or by a clergyman thereof, or a certificate of baptism duly authenticated by the person in charge of such register, or who administered said baptism, and also a transcript of the record of birth recorded in any bureau of vital statistics or board of health, duly authenticated by its secretary or under its seal, and the entries made in a family Bible, shall also be competent evidence upon the question of the age. [AMENDED CHAPS. 46 of 1884 AND 145 OF 1888.]

See & 279, post. Walker's case, 5 C. H. Rec. 137. See Stage's case, id. 177: People v. Davis, 1 Wh. C. C. 230.

Presumption. People v. Teller, 1 Wh. C. C. 231; People v. Randolph, 2 Park. 174; State v. Adams, 76 Mo. 355; State v. Tice, 6 West. 677; Willett v. Com., 13 Bush, 230; Angelo v. People, 96 111. 29; S. C., 36 Am. Rep. 132; Stone v. Dry D., etc., R. Co., 115 N. Y. 109.

Breach of peace. Bullock v. Babcock, 3 Wend. 391.

False pretenses. People v. Kendall, 25 Wend. 399; Doran v. Smith, 49 Vt. 353.

Felony. Angelo v. People, 96 111. 29.
Manslaughter. Irby v. State, 33 Ga. 496.

Murder. Godfrey v. State, 31 Ala. 323.

Rape. Com. v. Green, 2 Pick. 380; Law v. Com., 78 Va. 885; S. C., 40 Am. Rep. 750; see § 279, post.

Proof of age. By personal inspection. Matter of Serafino, 66 How. 178; State v. Arnold, 13 Ired. 184; Shingar v. State, 53 Ind. 251; People v. Plath, 3 N. Y. Cr. 129, rev'd on other grounds in 100 N. Y. 590; People v. Townsend, 3 Hill, 479; People v. Stott, 4 N. Y. Cr. 388; People, ex rel. Zeigler, v. Special Sessions, 10 Hun, 224.

By family Bible. People v. Sheppard, 5 N. Y. Cr. 132; S. C., 55 Hun, 565; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 104; 1 Phil. Ev. 255.

By infant's own testimony. Morrison v. Emsley, 53 Mich. 564; Cheever v. Congdon, 34 id. 296; Central R. Co. v. Coggin, 13 Ga. 689; Banks v. Metcalfe, 1 Wheeler Cas 381.

See further 37 Alb. L. J. 130; 28 Eng. Rep. 516; 37 id. 702; § 933 of Code of Civ. Pro.

§ 20. Irresponsibility of idiot, lunatic, etc.- An act done by a person who is an idiot, imbecile, lunatic, or insane, is not a crime. A person cannot be tried, sentenced to any punishment, or punished for a crime, while he is in a state of idiocy, imbecility, lunacy, or insanity, so as to be incapable of understanding the proceeding or making his defense.

If reasonable doubt of sanity, must acquit. People v. McCann, 16 N. Y. 58; Wagner v. People, 2 Keyes, 684; Cole's case, 7 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 321. See People v. Schryver, 42 N. Y. 1; Brotherton v. People, 75 id. 159; State v. Crawford, 11 Kans. 32; Polk v. State, 19 Ind. 170; Dove v. State, 3 Heisk. 348; Boswell v. Com., 20 Gratt. 860; State v. Marler, 2 Ala. 43; State v. Felter, 32 Ia. 49. See People v. Coffman, 24 Cal. 230; People v. Best, 39 id. 690. Lunatic, responsible during lucidity. Clark's case, 10. H. Rec. 176. Sanity at trial, no bearing on condition at time of offense. Freeman v. People, 4 Den. 9. Delirium from fever. People v. Beno Ville, 3 Abb. N. C. 125. Epileptic. Staudeman's case, id. 187; Jenisch's case, id. 200. Weakness of intellect no defense. Patterson v. People, 46 Barb. 625. Partial insanity. State v. Huting, 21 Mo. 464; Bovard v. State, 30 Miss. 600. Moral insanity not recognized. Chorci v. State, 31 Ga. 424; Humphreys v. State, 45 id. 190. See Scott v. Com., 4 Metc. (Ky.) 227; Peo ple v. Pine, 2 Barb. 566; Krom v. Schoonmaker, 3 id. 467; People v. Lake, 2 Park. 215. See O'Connell v. People, 62 How. Pr. 436; 89 N. Y. 377; Moett v. People, 85 N. Y. 373; Walker v. People, 88 id. 81; People v. Coleman, 1 N. Y. Cr. 1; People v. Carnel, 2 Edm. S. Č. 200. Hereditary insanity. Walsh v. People, 88 N. Y. 458. Plea of not guilty raises question. Ostrander v. People, 28 Hun, 38. Momentary insanity. People v. Ross, 2 Edm. S. C. 413.

Defense of insanity. Anderson v. State, 25 Neb. 550; Conway v. State, 118 Ind. 482; Martina v. State, 105 id. 445; People v. Montgomery, 13 Abb. (N. S.) 207; Sanchez v People, 4 Park. 535; S. C., 22 N. Y. 147; 18 How. 72; People v. Beno Ville, 3 Abb. N. C. 195: Lake v. People, 1 Park. 495; Waltz's case, 50 How. 204; Sindram v. People, 88 N. Y. 196; People v. Barber, 115 id. 475; McFarland's trial, 8 Abb. (N. S.) 57; People v. McElvaine, 36 N. Y. State Rep'r, 181; 125 N. Y. 600

Moral insanity Guiteau's case, 10 Fed. Rep'r, 161; Boswell v. State, 63 Ala. 307; 35 Am. Rep. 20; Charci v. State, 31 Ga. 424; People v. Pine, 2 Barb. 566; Krom v. Schoonmaker, 3 id. 467; State v. Potts, 100 N. C. 457; People v. Kerrigan, 73 Cal. 222.

Delirium tremens. People v Carpenter, 102 N. Y. 250; S. C., 4 N. Y. Cr. 187; O'Brien v. People, 48 Barb. 274; Real v. People, 55 id. 551; 42 Ν. Υ. 270; O'Connell v. People, 87 id. 377; 62 How. 436; Willis v. Com., 22 Alb. L. J. 176; Erwin v. State, 10 Tex. App. 700; People v. Mills, 98 N. Y. 176.

Mental disease. Parsons v. State, 36 Alb. L. J. 249; 81 Ala. 577; 60 Am. Rep. 193. See 36 Alb. L. J. 221; 63 Ala. 307.

Rule of responsibility. Walker v. People, 88 N. Y. 86; 1 N. Y. Cr. 27; People v. Coleman, id. 1; Willis v. People, 32 N. Y. 715; 5 Park. 621; Wagner v. People, 4 Abb. App. Dec. 509; 2 Keyes, 681; Casey v. People, 31 Hun, 158; 2 N. Y. Cr. 187; People v. Walworth, 4 id. 355; Flanagan v. People, 52 N. Y. 467; People v. Moett, 23 Hun, 60; People v. Waltz, 3 Abb. N. C. 209; 50 How. 204; People v. Sprague, 2 Park. 43; People v. Montgomery, 13 Abb. (N. S.) 207; United States v. Faulkner, 35 Fed. Rep'r, 730; Same v. Young, 7 Cr. L. M. 732; State v. Mowry, 37 Kans. 369; People v. Hoin, 62 Cal. 120; 45 Am. Rep. 651; State v. Potts, 100 N C. 457; State v. Murray, 11 Ore. 413; State v. Bundy, 24 S. C. 439; 58 Am. Rep. 262; Kearney v. People, 11 Colo. 258; Cunningham v. State, 56 Miss. 269; 31 Am. Rep. 360; People v. McFarland, 8 Abb. (N. S.) 57.

Burden of proof. Brotherton v. People, 75 N. Y. 159; O'Connell v. People, 87 id. 377; People v. McCann, 16 id. 58; Walker v. Feople, 88 id. 81; People v. Cole, 7 Abb. (N. S.) 321; Casey v. People, 31 Hun, 158; Walters v. People, 32 N. Y. 147; Wagner v. People, 2 Keyes, 684; 4 Abb. App. Dec. 509; O'Brien v. People, 48 Barb. 274; People v. Schryver, 42 N. Y. 1; People v. Robinson, 1 Park. 649; Dacey v. People, 116 III. 555; State v. Lawrence, 57 Me. 574; State v. Hoyt, 46 Conn. 330; State v. Crawford, 11 Kans. 32; State v. Jones, 50 N. H. 369.

Proof. People v. Hawkins, 109 N. Y. 408; People v. Barber, 115 id. 457; People v. Kemmler, 119 id. 580; Real v. People, 42 id. 282; O'Brien v. People, 36 id. 276; People v. Packenham, 115 id. 200; Plake v. State, 121 Ind. 433; State v. Alexander, 30 S. C. 74: 14 Am. St. Rep. 879; People v. Wood, 36 N. Y. State Rep'r, 952; People v. McElvaine, 121 N. Y.. 256; Same v. Same, 36 N. Y. State Rep'r, 181; 125 Ν. Υ. 600.

§ 21. Idiots, lunatics, etc., when excused from criminal liability. A person is not excused from criminal liability as an idiot, imbecile, lunatic, or insane person, except upon proof that, at the time of committing the alleged criminal act, he was laboring under such a defect of reason, as either

1. Not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or 2. Not to know that the act was wrong.

Where prisoner knows act unlawful, he is responsible. Willis v. People. 32 N. Y. 715; Flanagan v. People, 52 id. 467; Wagner v. People, 4 Abb. Dec. 509; People v. Montgomery, 13 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 207; People v. Moett, 23 Hun, 60; Smith v. Com., 1 Duvall (Ky.), 224; Kriel v. Com., 5 Bush (Ky.), 362; People v. McDonnell, 47 Cal. 134; Hopps v. People, 31 111. 385; Spain v. State, 47 Ga. 553; Brown v. Com., 78 Penn. St. 122; State v. Johnson, 40 Conn. 136. Knowledge must be accompanied with reason to apply it. Macfarland's trial, 8 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 57. Influence of spirits no defense, when knowledge of right and wrong. People v. Waltz, 50 How. Pr. 204. Feigned insanity. Waltz's case, 3 Abb. N. C. 209. Insane impulse. People v. Sprague, 2 Park. 43. Phrenzy, without derangement, no defense. Pierson's case, 3 C. H. Rec. 123; Sanchez v People, 4 Park. 535; 22 N. Y. 147. Monomania. Stevens v. State, 31 Ind. 485. See People v. Kline, Edm. S. C. 13; People v. Divine, id. 594; People v. Pine, 2 Barb. 566. Opinion of non-expert as to rational character of act, competent. People v. Conroy, 2 N. Y. Cr. 565.

See cases under last section,

§ 22. Intoxicated persons, intent. - No act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication, shall be deemed less criminal by reason of his having been in such condition. But whenever the actual existence of any particular purpose, motive or intent is a necessary element to constitute a particular species or degree of crime, the jury may take into consideration the fact that the accused was intoxicated at the time, in determining the purpose, motive or intent with which he committed the act.

Voluntary intoxication furnishes no excuse. People v. Rogers, 18 N. Y. 9; People v. Smith, 2 Park. Cr. 223; People v. Robinson, id. 235; 1 id. 649; Kenny v. People, 27 How. Pr. 202; S. C., 31 N. Y. 330; Lanergan v. People, 6 Park. 209; Friery v. People, 54 Barb. 319; People v. Perter, 2 Park. 14; People v.

Fuller, id. 36; People v. Wiley, id. 19; People v. Hammill, id. 223; People v. Batting, 49 How. Pr. 392; People v. Eastwood, 3 Park 25; 14 N. Y. 562; State v. Harlow, 21 Mo. 446; Shanahan v. Com., 8 Bush, 463; Com. v. Hawkins, 3 Gray, 463; Rafferty v. People, 66 III. 118; Chorci v. State, 31 Ga. 424; Humphreys v. State, 45 id. 190. See People v. Lewis, 36 Cal. 531; Hale v. State, 11 Humph. 154; Pirtle v. State, 9 id. 663; Cluck v. State, 40 Ind. 263. Evidence of intoxication to explain motive and conduct. Lanergan v. People, supra; People v. Hammill, supra; Eastwood v. People, supra; State v. Gut, 13 Minn. 341; Kelly v. State, 3 Smed. & Marsh. 518; Golden v. State, 25 Ga. 527; Jones v. State, 29 id. 594; Jones v. Com., 75 Penn. St. 403; Golliher v. Com, 2 Duvall (Ky.), 163; Smith v. Com., 11 id. 224; Curry v. Com., 2 Bush (Ky.), 7; Kriel v. Čom., 5 id. 362; Blimm v. Com., 7 id. 320; Shanahan v. Com., 8 id. 463; State v. Horne, 9 Kans. 119; Nichols v. State, 8 Ohio (N. S.), 435; State v. Schingen, 20 Wis. 74; State v. Garvey, 11 Minn. 154. Where intoxication produces insanity. Lanergan v. People, supra; O'Brien v. People, 48 Barb. 274; People v. Williams, 43 Cal. 344; Cromwell v. State, 1 Mart. & Yerg. 147; U. S. v. Drew, 5 Mason, 28; State v. McGonigal, 5 Harring. 510 Delirium tremens. O'Brien v. People, supra; Real v. People, 55 Barb. 551; S. C., 42 N. Y. 270; Maconnekey v. State, 5 Ohio (N. S.), 77; Willis v. Com. (Va.), 22 Alb. L. J. 176; People v. Cavanagh, 62 How. Pr. 187; People v. Pearce, 2 Edm S. C. 76; People v. Jones, id. 86; Flanigan v. People, 86 N. Y. 554; People v. O Connell, 87 id. 377. See People v. Cassiano, 17 W. Dig. 499; People v. Mills, 98 N. Y. 176.

See further People v. Conroy, 33 Hun, 119; 2 N. Y. Cr. 247; Kenny v. People, 31 N. Y. 330; 27 How. 202; Upstone v. People, 109 111. 169; Hopt v. People, 104 U. S. 631; People v. Burns, 33 Hun, 296; 2 N. Y. Cr. 415; Com. v. Hagenlock, 140 Mass. 125; Wood v. State, 34 Ark. 341; People v. Fish, 125 N. Y. 146; 34 N. Y. State Rep'r, 843; State v. Mowry, 37 Kans. 369; State v. Shores, 31 W. Va. 491; People v. Otto, 38 Hun, 97.

§ 23. Morbid criminal propensity, no defense. - A morbid propensity to commit prohibited acts, existing in the mind of a person who is not shown to have been incapable of knowing the wrongfulness of such acts, forms no defense to a prosecution therefor.

People v. Otto, 38 Hun, 97. See Huntington's trial and authorities cited; Flanagan v. People, 52 N. Y. 467; People v. Carpenter, 102 id. 250; 4 N. Y. Cr. 177; People v. Waltz, 50 How. 204.

§ 24. Defense of duress, by married woman. - It is not a defense, to a married woman charged with crime, that the alleged criminal act was committed by her in the presence of her husband.

Boyd's case, 3 C. H. Rec. 134; Goldstien et al. v. People, 10 W. Dig. 506; 82 N. Y. 231; Seiler v. People, 77 id. 411; People v. Ryland, 28 Hun, 568; aff'd, 2 N. Y. Cr. 438; 97 N. Y. 126; Brown's case, 3C. H Rec. 56; Goodman's case, 6 id. 21; Rooney's case, 3 id. 126; Brandon's case, 4 id. 140; People v. Townsend, 3 Hill, 479; Quinlan v. People, 6 Park. 9.

§ 25. Duress, how constituted. - Where a crime is committed or participated in by two or more persons, and is committed, aided, or participated in by any one of them, only because, during the time of its commission, he is compelled to do, or to aid or participate in the act, by threats of another person engaged in the act or omission, and reasonable apprehension on his part of instant death or grievous bodily harm, in case he refuses, the threats and apprehension constitute duress, and excuse him.

Goldstein v. People, 82 N. Y. 231.

§ 26. Act done in defense of self or another. - An act, otherwise criminal, is justifiable when it is done to protect the person committing it, or another whom he is bound to protect, from inevitable and irreparable personal injury, and the injury could only be prevented by the act, nothing more being done than is necessary to prevent the injury.

See post, §§ 203, 204, 205, 223; Code Cr. Proc., §§ 79, 80, 81. Statutory offenses indictable, though penalty also. People v. Stevens, 13 Wend. 341; People v. Brown, 16 id. 561. A person attacked, if justified in reasonably apprehending great bodily harm and the danger imminent, may kill his assailant. Shorter v. People, 2 N. Y. 193; Patterson v. People, 46 Barb. 625. See People v. Lamb, 54 Barb. 342; People v Austin, 1 Park. 154; People v. Cole, 4 id. 35; Pfomer v. People, id. 558; Uhl v. People, 5 id. 410. Party assailed must avoid attack, if possible, to justify resistance. People v. Sullivan, 7 N. Y. 396; People v. Cole, supra; People. Harper, Edm. S. C. 180; Shorter v. People, supra. Resistance to prevent felony. Ruloff v. People, 45 N. Y. 213; People v. Hand, 4 Alb. L. J. 91. Need not first invoke protection against anticipated assault. Evers v. People, 3 Hun, 716; 63 Ν. Υ. 625. Defense of possession of real property. Corey v. People, 45 Barb. 262; Wood v. Phillips, 43 N. Y. 152; People v. Gulick, Lalor, 229; Harrington v. People, fr Barb. 607. Defense of personal property. Gyre v. Culver, 47 Barb. 592; Morgan v. Durfee, 21 Alb. L. J. 215.

See People v. Lyons, 6 N. Y. Cr. 105; note on self-defense, id. 119; People v. Pearl, 76 Mich. 207; People v. Lennon, 71 id. 298; State v. Broussard, 39 La. Ann. 671; Sawyer v. People, 16 W. Dig. 394; People v. McGrath, 47 Hun, 325; Hall v. People, 18 W. Dig. 357; 2 N. Y. Cr. 134; Morgan v. Durfee, 21 Alb. L. J. 215; People v. Minisci, 12 N. Y. State Rep'r, 720.

§27. Exemption of public ministers.-Ambassadors and other public ministers from foreign governments, accredited to the president or government of the United States, and recognized according to the laws of the United States, with their secretaries, messengers, families and servants, are not liable to punishment in this state, but are to be returned to their own country for trial and punishment.

Wheat. Int. L. 264, § 6; 271, §14; Vattel, 470, § 91, etc.; 1 Bish. Cr. L., § 585. Act of Cong., Apr. 30, 1790, chap. 9, § 25. By treaty, assault by and upon German citizens, on board vessel in port, state courts have no jurisdiction, except as it disturbs the peace; People v. Marine Court, 6 Hun, 214.

Section 2, Art. 3 of Federal Const.

TITLE II.

Of Parties to Crime.

SEC. 28. Principal and accessory.

29. Definition of principal.

30. Definition of accessory.

31. All principals in misdemeanors.

32. Trial of accessories.

33. Punishment of accessories.

§ 28. Principal and accessory.-A party to a crime is, either 1. A principal; or,

2. An accessory.

§ 29. Definition of principal. A person concerned in the commission of a crime, whether he directly commits the act constituting the offense or aids and abets in its commission, and whether present or absent, and a person who directly or indirectly counsels, commands, induces or procures another to commit a crime, is a principal.

People v. McMurray, 4 Park. 234: Wixson v. People, 5 id. 119: Carrington v. People, 6 id. 336; People v. Bliven, 112 N.Y. 82; 20 N. Y. State Rep'r, 487; People v. Katz, 23 How. 94: People v. Batterson, 50 Hun, 44; Leonard v. Poole, 114 N. Y. 371; People v. Ryland, 97 id. 126; People v. Brien, 53 Hun, 496; 25 N. Y. State Rep'r, 239; People v. Bassford, 21 W. Dig. 349; 3 N. Y. Cr.