"The aimlessness and purposelessness of the act, and the uselessness of the things taken, are essential characteristics" of kleptomania.55 In those jurisdictions where the doctrine of irresistible impulse is recognized in insanity cases generally,56 kleptomania as above defined. is a good defense to a charge of larceny.57 But in those jurisdictions where the right and wrong test is the only one recognized,58 it will be applied where a defense of kleptomania is interposed, and knowledge of the right and wrong of the act charged will be the sole criterion for determining the criminal responsibility of the accused.59 $127. Somnambulism and somnolentia. Somnambulism has been defined to be "the act of walking about, with the performances of apparently purposive acts, while in a state intermediate. between sleep and waking," 60 and somnolentia as "the lapping over of a profound sleep into the domain of apparent wakefulness.'' 61 Both somnambulism and somnolentia are regarded as a species of mental unsoundness or insanity 62 and it has been held that a per 532, 87 N. W. 503, 55 L. R. A. 378, 89 Am. St. Rep. 382. 55 Com. v. Fritch, 9 Pa. Co. Ct. 164. See People v. Sprague, 2 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 43, where the defendant was shown to have an objectless desire to steal shoes of females and to hide and spoil them. 56 See § 120, supra. 57 State v. McCullough, 114 Iowa 532, 87 N. W. 503, 55 L. R. A. 378, 89 Am. St. Rep. 382; People v. Sprague, 2 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 43; Com. v. Fritch, 9 Pa. Co. Ct. 164. 58 See § 117, supra. 59 State v. Riddle, 245 Mo. 451, 150 S. W. 1044, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 150, Ann. Cas. 1914 A 884; People v. Sprague, 2 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 43; Lowe v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. 224, 70 S. W. 206; Cannon v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. 467, 56 S. W. 351; Hurst v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. 378, 46 S. W. 635, 50 S. W. 719. And see Henslie v. State, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 202, where, however, it was held that the evidence did not show a case of kleptomania. A general instruction laying down the right and wrong test is sufficient where kleptomania is charged. 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. 60 Cent. Dict.; Tibbs v. Com., 138 Ky. 558, 128 S. W. 871, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 665. And see Fain v. Com., 78 Ky. 183, 39 Am. Rep. 213. 61 Wharton & Stille Med. Jour. § 151; quoted in Fain v. Com., 78 Ky. 183, 39 Am. Rep. 213. 62 Fain v. Com., 78 Ky. 183, 39 Am. Rep. 213. In Tibbs v. Com., 138 Ky. 558, 128 S. W. 871, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 665, it was said that the fact that the defendant was a somnambulist, and while in that state was without self-control, and committed acts of which he had no recollection, did not constitute any defense other than that embraced in a plea of insanity, and that evidence to the above effect made it proper to submit the question of insanity to the jury. son while in a paroxysm of either does not enjoy the free and rational exercise of his understanding, and hence acts committed by him during such a paroxysm cannot be imputed to him as crimes.63 § 128. Hypnotism. Hypnotism is "a name applied to a condition, artificially produced, in which the person hypnotized, apparently asleep, acts in obedience to the will of the operator." 64 The mere fact that one is told to commit a crime and does commit it does not tend to establish the defense of hypnotism, nor warrant the admission of testimony as to its effect on those subject to hypnotic influence.65 IV. INTOXICATION AND USE OF DRUGS § 129. Voluntary drunkenness in general. Voluntary drunkenness does not exempt a man from criminal responsibility for his acts. A drunken man is as fully responsible for his acts as a sober man, though he may have been so drunk as to be temporarily deprived of his reason and rendered incapable of knowing what he was doing,66 unless the fact of drunkenness negatives the existence of 68 Fain v. Com., 78 Ky. 183, 39 Am. Rep. 213. 64 Austin v. Barker, 110 N. Y. App. Div. 510, 96 N. Y. Supp. 814. And see Parks v. State, 159 Ind. 211, 64 N. E. 862, 59 L. R. A. 190. 65 Such evidence does not tend to establish a defense to a charge of murder, where there is no evidence tending to show that the defendant was subject to such influence. People v. Worthington, 105 Cal. 166, 38 Pac. 689. 66 United States. Perkins v. United States, 228 Fed. 408, rev' 221 Fed. 109; United States v. McGlue, 1 Curt. 1, Fed. Cas. No. 15,679; United States v. Drew, 5 Mason 28, Fed. Cas. No. 14,993. Alabama. James v. State, 193 Ala. 55, 69 So. 569, Ann. Cas. 1918 B 119; Beasley v. State, 50 Ala. 149, 20 Am. Rep. 292; Williams v. State, 13 Ala. App. 133, 69 So. 376; Rhodes v. State, 3 Ala. App. 182, 57 So. 1021. Arkansas. Carty v. State, 135 Ark. 169, 204 S. W. 207; Alford v. State, 110 Ark. 300, 161 S. W. 497; Byrd v. State, 76 Ark. 286, 88 S. W. 974; Chrisman v. State, 54 Ark. 283, 15 S. W. 889, 26 Am. St. Rep. 44. California. People v. Keyes, 178 Cal. 794, 175 Pac. 6; People v. Fellows, 122 Cal. 233, 54 Pac. 830; People v. Ferris, 55 Cal. 588; People v. Goodrum, 31 Cal. App. 430, 160 Pac. 690. Colorado. Seiwald v. People, 66 Colo. 332, 182 Pac. 20. Delaware. State v. Hand, 1 Marv. 545, 41 Atl. 192; State v. Truitt, 5 Pennew. 466, 62 Atl. 790; State v. Di Guglielmo, 4 Pennew. 336, 55 Atl. 350; State v. Kavanaugh, 4 Pennew. 131, 53 Atl. 335. District of Columbia. Sabens v. United States, 40 App. Cas. 440. Florida. Garner v. State, 28 Fla. 113, 9 So. 835, 29 Am. St. Rep. 232. Georgia. Dickens v. State, 137 Ga. a specific intent or knowledge, which is an essential ingredient of the 523, 73 S. E. 826; Strickland v. State, 137 Ga. 115, 72 S. E. 922; McCook v. State, 91 Ga. 740, 17 S. E. 1019; Beck v. State, 76 Ga. 452; Choice v. State, 31 Ga. 424. Illinois. Bleich v. People, 227 Ill. 80, 81 N. E. 36; Addison v. People, 193 Ill. 405, 62 N. E. 235; Crosby v. People, 137 Ill. 325, 27 N. E. 49; Upstone v. People, 109 Ill. 169; Bartholomew v. People, 104 Ill. 601; Rafferty v. People, 66 Ill. 118. Indiana. Sharp v. State, 161 Ind. 288, 68 N. E. 286; Booher v. State, 156 Ind. 435, 60 N. E. 156, 54 L. R. A. 391; Aszman v. State, 123 Ind. 347, 24 N. E. 123, 8 L. R. A. 33; Goodwin v. State, 96 Ind. 550. Iowa. State v. Wilson, 166 Iowa 309, 144 N. W. 47, 147 N. W. 739; State v. Roan, 122 Iowa 136, 97 N. W. 997. Kansas. State v. O'Neil, 51 Kan. 651, 33 Pac. 287, 24 L. R. A. 555. Kentucky. Harris v. Com., 183 Ky. 542, 209 S. W. 509; Douthitt v. Com., 179 Ky. 192, 200 S. W. 466; Mearns v. Com., 164 Ky. 213, 175 S. W. 355; Terhune v. Com., 144 Ky. 370, 138 S. W. 274; Shannahan v. Com., 8 Bush 463, 8 Am. Rep. 465. Louisiana. State v. Kraemer, 49 La. Ann. 766, 22 So. 254, 39 L. R. A. 263. Massachusetts. Com. V. Malone, 114 Mass. 295; Com. v. Hawkins, 3 Gray 463. Michigan. Roberts v. People, 19 Mich. 401; People v. Garbutt, 17 Mich. 9, 97 Am. Dec. 162. Minnesota. State V. Welch, 21 Minn. 22. New Jersey. State v. Marriner, 93 N. J. L. 273, 108 Atl. 306; Wilson v. State, 60 N. J. L. 171, 37 Atl. 954, 38 Atl. 428; Warner v. State, 56 N. J. L. 686, 29 Atl. 505, 44 Am. St. Rep. 415. New York. People v. Krist, 168 N. Y. 19, 60 N. E. 1057; Flanigan v. People, 86 N. Y. 554, 40 Am. Rep. 556; People v. Rogers, 18 N. Y. 9, 72 Am. Dec. 484. State v. Foster, North Carolina. 172 N. C. 960, 90 S. E. 785; State v. Shelton, 164 N. C. 513, 79 S. E. 883; State v. Murphy, 157 N. C. 614, 72 S. E. 1075; State v. Kale, 124 N. C. 816, 32 S. E. 892; State v. Wilson, 104 N. C. 868, 10 S. E. 315; State v. John. 8 Ired. 330, 49 Am. Dec. 396. Oklahoma. Buck v. State, 16 Okla. Cr. 356, 182 Pac. 913; Tubby v. State, 15 Okla. Cr. 496, 178 Pac. 491; McCarter v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 305, 170 Pac. 712; Perryman v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 500, 159 Pac. 937; Cheadle v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 566, 149 Pac. 919, L. R. A. 1915 E 1031; Miller v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 55, 130 Pac. 813. Oregon. State v. Morris, 83 Ore. 429, 163 Pac. 567. Pennsylvania. Com. v. Snyder, 224 Pa. 526, 73 Atl. 910; Com. v. Eyler, 217 Pa. 512, 66 Atl. 746, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 639, 10 Ann. Cas. 786. Rhode Island. State v. Vanasse, 42 R. I. 278, 107 Atl. 85. South Carolina. State v. Bundy, 24 S. C. 439, 58 Am. Rep. 263. Tennessee. Atkins v. State, 119 Tenn. 458, 105 S. W. 353, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1031. Texas. Carter v. State, 12 Tex. 500, 62 Am. Dec. 539; Harris v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. 652, 169 S. W. 657; Drysdale v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. 273, 156 S. W. 685; Lawrence v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. 93, 143 S. W. 636; Evers v. State, particular offense charged,67 or unless the accused was suffering from delirium tremens or settled insanity resulting from previous habits of intemperance,68 nor will drunkenness aggravate an offense,69 nor make that a crime which would otherwise be excusable on the ground of accident.70 By statute in at least one state, however, temporary insanity produced by the voluntary recent use of intoxicants may be shown in mitigation of the penalty attached to the offense.71 And the fact that the accused was drunk at or about the time the deed with which he is charged was committed may always be proven if it tends to show that he could not have committed the deed, the evidence being admitted in such case, not to exempt him from responsibility for an act done by him, but to show that some other person, and not he, must have committed it.7 § 130. Delirium tremens or settled insanity. The general rule that voluntary drunkenness is no defense does not apply in the case 31 Tex. Cr. 318, 20 S. W. 744, 18 L. R. A. 421, 37 Am. St. Rep. 811. Vermont. State v. Tatro, 50 Vt. 483. Virginia. Willis v. Com., 32 Gratt. 929; Boswell v. Com., 20 Gratt. 860. Washington. State v. Dolan, 17 Wash. 499, 50 Pac. 472. West Virginia. State v. Kidwell, 62 W. Va. 466, 59 S. E. 494, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1024; State v. Shores, 31 W. Va. 491, 7 S. E. 413, 13 Am. St. Rep. 875; State v. Robinson, 20 W. Va. 713, 43 Am. Rep. 799. Wisconsin. Terrill v. State, 74 Wis. 278, 42 N. W. 243. Wyoming. Gustavenson v. State, 10 Wyo. 300, 68 Pac. 1006. England. 4 Bl. Com. 25, 26; 1 Hale P. C. 32; 1 Inst. 247; 3 Inst. 46; Rex v. Meakin, 7 C. & P. 297; Beverley's Case, 4 Coke 125a; Pearson's Case, 2 Lewin C. C. 144; Burrow's Case, 1 Lewin C. C. 75. 67 See § 132, infra. 68 See § 130, infra. 60 McIntyre v. People, 38 Ill. 514; Wilson v. State, 60 N. J. L. 171, 37 Atl. 954, 38 Atl. 428; Pigman v. State, 14 Ohio 555, 45 Am. Dec. 558; At kins v. State, 119 Tenn. 458, 105 S. W. 353, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1031. 70The fact that a person may be drunk when he accidentally causes the death of another does not convert such accident into a crime.' "" State v. Cross, 42 W. Va. 253, 24 S. E. 996. 71 Harris v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. 652, 169 S. W. 657; Truett v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. 284, 168 S. W. 523; Drysdale v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. 273, 156 S. W. 685; Lyles v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. 621, 142 S. W. 592. Temporary insanity so produced may mitigate the punishment, but mere drunkenness will not do so. Dodd v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. 160, 201 S. W. 1014; Clore v. State, 26 Tex. App. 624, 10 S. W. 242. 72 Thus, drunkeness may be shown when it tends to prove an alibi, as where it is shown that the accused, shortly before the time the act was done, was at another place, and in such a state of drunkenness that he could not have been at the place where the act was done. Ingalls v. State, 48 Wis. 647, 4 N. W. 785. of settled insanity, or delirium tremens, resulting from previous habits of intemperance, and such insanity will exempt one from responsibility under the same circumstances, but only under the same circumstances, that insanity from any other cause would exempt him.73 78 United States. Perkins v. United States, 228 Fed. 408, rev'g 221 Fed. 109; United States V. McGlue, 1 Curt. 1, Fed. Cas. No. 15,679; United States v. Drew, 5 Mason 28, Fed. Cas. No. 14,993. Alabama. Beasley v. State, 50 Ala. 149, 20 Am. Rep. 292. Arkansas. Carty v. State, 135 Ark. 169, 204 S. W. 207. California. People v. Fellows, 122 Cal. 233, 54 Pac. 830; People v. Keys, 178 Cal. 794, 175 Pac. 6; People v. Travers, 88 Cal. 233, 26 Pac. 88; People v. Goodrum, 31 Cal. App. 430, 160 Pac. 690. See also People v. Hubert, 119 Cal. 216, 51 Pac. 329, 63 Am. St. Rep. 72. Delaware. State v. Harrigan, 9 Houst. 369, 31 Atl. 1052; State v. Hand, 1 Marv. 545, 41 Atl. 192; State v. Kavanaugh, 4 Pennew. 131, 53 Atl. 335. Florida, Hall v. State, 78 Fla. 420, 83 So. 513; Cochran v. State, 65 Fla. 91, 61 So. 187; Thomas v. State, 47 Fla. 99, 36 So. 161. Georgia. Strickland v. State, 137 Ga. 115, 72 S. E. 922; Beck v. State, 76 Ga. 452. Illinois. Upstone v. People, 109 Ill. 169. Indiana. Wagner v. State, 116 Ind. 181, 18 N. E. 833. Kansas. State v. O'Neil, 51 Kan. 651, 33 Pac. 287, 24 L. R. A. 555. Louisiana. State v. Kraemer, 49 La. Ann. 766, 22 So. 254, 62 Am. St. Rep. 644. Massachusetts. Com. v. Gilbert, 165 Mass. 45, 42 N. E. 336. Missouri. State v. Riley, 100 Mo. 493, 13 S. W. 1063. New York. People v. Mills, 98 N. Y. 176; People v. Rogers, 18 N. Y. 9, 72 Am. Dec. 484; People v. Robinson, 2 Park. Cr. 235. North Carolina. State v. Wilson, 104 N. C. 868, 10 S. E. 315. Oklahoma. Collier v. State, Okla. Cr., 186 Pac. 963; Tubby v. State, 15 Okla. Cr. 496, 178 Pac. 491; McCarter v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 305, 170 Pac. 712; Perryman v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 500, 159 Pac. 937; Cheadle v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 566, 149 Pac. 919, L. R. A. 1915 E 1031. Oregon. State v. Trapp, 56 Ore. 588, 109 Pac. 1094; State v. Zorn, 22 Ore. 591, 30 Pac. 317. Tennessee. Atkins v. State, 119 Tenn. 458, 105 S. W. 353, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1031. Texas. Carter v. State, 12 Tex. 500, 62 Am. Dec. 539; Truett v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. 284, 168 S. W. 523; Evers v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. 318, 20 S. W. 744, 18 L. R. A. 421, 37 Am. St. Rep. 811; Erwin v. State, 10 Tex. App. 700. Utah. State v. Dewey, 41 Utah 538, 127 Pac. 275. Virginia. Boswell V. Com., 20 Gratt. 860. West Virginia. State v. Kidwell, 62 W. Va. 466, 59 S. E. 494, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1024; State v. Robinson, 20 W. Va. 713, 43 Am. Rep. 799. Wisconsin. French v. State, 93 Wis. 325, 67 N. W. 706; Terrill v. State, 74 Wis. 278, 42 N. W. 243. England. 1 Hale P. C. 32; Reg. v. Davis, 14 Cox C. C. 563. Such a condition is the remote, and not the immediate, result of the voluntary drinking, and the law does not |