“In considering her story, her credibility as a witness is highly material, and everything that she has said or done must be taken into consideration. Her admissions regarding the relations existing between herself and the defendant prior and subsequent to this tragedy and prior to her marriage or any other act should be weighed in connection with her story.
“A wide latitude was allowed on cross-examination. You should give due credit to all that was developed along with other facts.
“There has been no denial entered here that death resulted from pistol shot wounds inflicted by the defendant; he committed the act. It was not incumbent upon the prosecution to introduce preliminary testimony to show that he was sane. The burden of proof is upon the defense. Whoever denies sanity must prove that insanity is present. The burden of proving a crime is on the prosecution, but the burden of overthrowing sanity is on the person claiming it.
“The hypothetical questions which were answered by the experts assumed certain facts and the answer was only the opinion of the expert on those assumed facts.
“You are not obliged nor are you permitted to accept opinions as you would facts. In considering the testimony of medical experts, you are to consider their experience and knowledge, and you should consider the quality of the medical testimony and not its quantity.
“The so-called irresistible impulse has no place in the law and is not an excuse, nor is every person of a disordered mind excused. While the burden of proof of insanity is on the defendant, he is also entitled to every reasonable doubt on the subject. If the defendant knew the nature or the quality of his act, or knew that the act was wrong, then he committed a crime.
“As to the distinction between reasonable doubt and a possible doubt you were thoroughly examined when you were about to become jurors.
“The law does not require that the prosecution shall efface every possible doubt.
“It only requires that the prosecution shall go beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing in this world is beyond all doubt. The defendant is entitled to every reasonable doubt and that is all.
“You may in this case, let me say once more, find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, guilty of murder in the second degree or guilty of manslaughter in the first degree.