Amos v. Com.
| Decision Date | 13 December 1974 |
| Citation | 516 S.W.2d 836 |
| Parties | Estil AMOS, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
J. Reid Caudill, Bowling Green, for appellant.
Ed. W. Hancock, Atty. Gen., Kenneth A. Howe, Jr., Asst. Deputy Atty. Gen., William W. Pollard, Legal Intern, Frankfort, for appellee.
Appellant Estil Amos, who shot and killed Marcus Phelps on September 5, 1972, was indicted for wilful murder. KRS 435.010. A jury found him guilty of voluntary manslaughter and fixed his punishment at nine years' imprisonment. Judgment was entered pursuant to that verdict; Amos appeals. We affirm.
Amos, who claimed that he acted in self-defense, testified as to what had happened on the day he killed Phelps. Later, Percy Young, a defense witness, was asked if he knew Phelps' general reputation for peacefulness and quietude. The objection of the Commonwealth was sustained. Amos argues that he had a right to show Phelps' 'violent character and reputation.'
It should be noted that the question related specifically to Phelps' reputation, but because of Amos' argument we will discuss the law on the subject of the admissibility of evidence as to the character or the reputation of the victim of a homicide. The words 'reputation' and 'character' are not synonymous and different rules apply to the introduction of evidence on these two subjects. Character means disposition, not reputation, and denotes what a person is, not what he is reputed to be. Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 69 S.Ct. 213, 223, 93 L.Ed. 168 (1948). We said that 'One's general reputation is not what another person may know or think about him, but it is the estimate in which he is held by the people generally with whom he associates and comes in contact with in everyday life.' Citizens Bank of Morehead v. Hunt, 287 Ky. 646, 154 S.W.2d 730 (1941). Also see 14 C.J.S. Character, pp. 398, 399.
In several cases decided by this court, the admissibility of evidence of the reputation or the character of the slain person for peace and quietude was considered without differentiating between reputation and character and without indicating the purpose for which the evidence was offered. See such cases as Tinsley v. Commonwealth, Ky., 495 S.W.2d 776, cert. denied 414 U.S. 1077, 94 S.Ct. 595, 38 L.Ed.2d 484 (1973); McGill v. Commonwealth, Ky., 365 S . W.2d 470 (1963); Howard v. Commonwealth, 198 Ky. 453, 248 S.W. 1059 (1923); Stacey v. Commonwealth, 189 Ky. 402, 225 S.W. 37, 25 A.L.R. 490 (1920); Morrison v. Commonwealth, 24 Ky.Law Rep. 2493, 74 S.W. 277, 67 L.R.A. 529 (1903); Commonwealth v. Hoskins, 18 Ky.Law Rep. 59, 35 S.W. 284 (1896); Riley v. Commonwealth, 94 Ky. 266, 15 Ky.Law Rep. 46, 22 S.W. 222 (1893); and Payne v. Commonwealth, 1 Met., 58 Ky. 370 (1858).
Various texts have explained that prior knowledge by the accused of the reputation of the victim must be established or evidence is inadmissible to show that the accused acted out of fear based on that reputation. Reputation sometimes has been loosely referred to as 'character'. See New Kentucky Criminal Law and Procedure, Roberson, 2d Edition, Sec. 489; Wigmore on Evidence, 3rd Edition, Vol. II, Sec. 246; 40 C.J.S. Homicide § 222; 40 Am.Jur.2d, Homicide, Sec. 305; Annotations 64 A.L.R. 1029, 1044, and 1 A.L.R.3d 571, 596.
The rule to which we subcribe is that when a defendant who is accused of committing a homicide relies upon self-defense he may show the reputation of his claimed aggressor for violence only if he first shows that he was aware of that reputation at the time he claims to have been acting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Com.
...not connected with the homicide.' Robertson's New Criminal Law and Procedure, Second Edition, § 489, p. 657. See also Amos v. Commonwealth, Ky., 516 S.W.2d 836 (1974), and McGill v. Commonwealth, Ky., 365 S.W.2d 470 Neither the law in this jurisdiction, nor the Federal Rules of Evidence, al......
-
Boyle v. Com.
...the appellant knew of that reputation. The Commonwealth maintains that this was the proper course to be followed under Amos v. Commonwealth, Ky., 516 S.W.2d 836 (1974), which held that unless the defendant knew of his victim's reputation for violence, evidence of that reputation has no bear......
-
Raney v. Commonwealth, No. 2006-SC-000030-MR (Ky. 1/25/2007)
...to use physical force in self-protection. Saylor, supra. See also Parrish v. Commonwealth, 581 S.W.2d 560 (Ky. 1979); Amos v. Commonwealth, 516 S.W.2d 836 (Ky. 1974), and McGill v. Commonwealth, 365 S.W.2d 470 (Ky. 1963). Since the Appellant did not argue self-defense, that it was an accide......
-
Parrish v. Com.
...are not connected with the homicide." Roberson's New Criminal Law and Procedure, Second Edition, § 489, p. 657. See also Amos v. Commonwealth, Ky., 516 S.W.2d 836 (1974), and McGill v. Commonwealth, Ky., 365 S.W.2d 470 Parrish argues that he was entitled to a change of venue for the reason ......