Adams v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 24 March 1899
• Citation: 50 S.W. 263
• Parties: ADAMS v. COMMONWEALTH. [1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

50 S.W. 263

ADAMS v. COMMONWEALTH. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 24, 1899

Appeal from circuit court, Pike county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Henry Adams was convicted of manslaughter, under an indictment for murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

J. M. York, for appellant.

W. S. Taylor and M. H. Thatcher, for the Commonwealth.

WHITE, J.

The appellant, Henry Adams, was indicted in the Pike circuit court for the crime of murder. Upon trial he was convicted of the crime of manslaughter, and his punishment fixed by the jury at confinement in the penitentiary for the term of 21 years. From that judgment of conviction this appeal is prosecuted.

Appellant complains of the action of the court in permitting certain evidence of threats made by appellant towards deceased some two years before the killing. If the admission of this testimony was error (a question unnecessary to decide), it could not have been prejudicial to appellant, in view of the verdict. This testimony could have had no effect other than to show malice in the accused. The jury, by their verdict of manslaughter, found, of a necessity, there was no malice. This testimony could in no way have prejudiced appellant's case. Tuttle v. Com. (Ky.) 33 S.W. 823.

Appellant also complains that he was asked, on cross-examination, if he was not then indicted in the state of Virginia for the crime of murder. He answered he had been so informed. There appears to have been no objection to answering this question, and the court was not called upon to act on the question as to its admissibility, and there is no exception of any kind.

Appellant also complains of the instructions given; but there is no objection or exception noted to either, and no others were offered. However, we are of opinion that the instructions given, five in number, embrace the whole law of the case. The instructions cover the crimes of murder and of manslaughter, as well as self-defense, reasonable doubt, and doubt as to the degree. There was evidence that supports the verdict, and it cannot be set aside on that ground. There is no error appearing in the record prejudicial to appellant, and the judgment is affirmed.

---------

Notes:

^[1] Reported by Edward W. Hines, Esq., of the Frankfort bar, and formerly state reporter.

---------