Criminal Law—Murder—Insanity—Conflict of Evidence—Appeal.— In a prosecution for the crime of murder, where the evidence is in substantial conflict on the sole defense of insanity at the time of the commission of the crime, the verdict cannot be disturbed on appeal.

Id.—Insanity as Result of Alcoholism—Instruction.—On a trial for murder committed after an attempt to commit sodomy, where the principal defense was settled insanity produced by habitual intoxication, an instruction that insanity produced by intoxication does not destroy responsibility when the party, when sane and responsible, made himself voluntarily intoxicated, and that evidence of drunkenness can only be considered for the purpose of determining the degree of the crime, does not purport to deal with settled insanity, produced by intoxication, but with temporary intoxication as a defense, and has relevancy only to the intoxication of the defendant existing at the time of the murder.

Id.—Defense of Insanity—Burden of P!roof—Quantum of Evidence —Instruction.—In such an action, an instruction that where insanity is relied upon as a defense, the burden of proving the existence of such insanity is on the defendant, and it is incumbent on him to establish by a preponderance of evidence that he was insane at the time of the committing of the act' charged, and the evidence of mental derangement must be such, in amount, that if the single issue of sanity or insanity of the defendant should be submitted t’o the jury in a civil case, they must find that he is insane, is not objectionable as imposing too great a burden upon defendant as to how far Ms proof of insanity must preponderate.

Id.—Continuance of Insanity — Presumption — Instruction.—A requested instruction that if the jury finds that the defendant was insane at a period before the homicide in question, his insanity is presumed to have continued up to the time of the homicide, providing the exciting cause of such insanity also exists up to such time, is too broad, in that it does not properly limit t'he insanity to permanent or habitual insanity, as distinguished from temporary insanity, there being as to the latter no presumption of continuance from proof of its prior existence.

Id.—Presumption as to Killing During Lucid Interval—Instruo- ‘ tion.—A requested instruction that if the jury finds that the defendant was insane at a period before the homicide, there arises a presumption that such insanity continued and the .burden of proof rest's upon one who claims that an act of such person was during a lucid interval to show that the lucid interval existed at the time of the act in question, is too broad, and is also objectionable as containing an incorrect statement of the law of presumption as to lucid interval.

Id.—Imbecility as a Defense—Instruction.—A requested instruction that although sanity is presumed to be the normal and natural state of .the human mind, when imbecility is once shown t'o exist in a person it is presumed to exist and continue until the presumption has been overcome by contrary or repelling evidence proving sanity, is not a correct statement of the law.

Ib.—Sanity of Defendant—Trial by Jury—Discretion.—The right of a defendant to have the sole question of his sanity passed upon by a jury in proceedings inaugurated under section 1368 of the Penal Code is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and the showing must be sufficient to create a doubt in the mind of the judge as to the defendant’s sanity before the court is required to submit' the question to the jury.