Baldridge v. Commonwealth

• Citation: 88 S.W. 1076
• Parties: BALDRIDGE v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Decision Date: 22 September 1905
• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky

88 S.W. 1076

BALDRIDGE v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

September 22, 1905

Appeal from Circuit Court, Rowan County.

"Not to be officially reported."

Sherman Baldridge was convicted of crime, and appeals. Reversed.

John E Cooper, for appellant.

N. B Hays, C. H. Morris, and Alex. Connor, for the Commonwealth.

SETTLE J.

The appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted in the Rowan circuit court for the crime of unlawfully detaining a woman one Mary Alice Hicks, against her will, with the intent to have carnal knowledge of her; his punishment being fixed at two years' confinement in the penitentiary. He has appealed, and urges a reversal of the judgment of conviction upon several grounds.

The facts established by the evidence of the commonwealth were That on the night the crime is charged to have been committed Mary Alice Hicks, a girl 14 years of age, was staying at the house of Green Baldridge, a brother of appellant, and sleeping with her younger sister in the second story of the house. That during the night appellant, a married man of middle age, and uncle by marriage of the prosecutrix, entered the room in which she was sleeping through the window and approached her bed. That she, hearing him, got up from the bed, when he seized the garment she was wearing, tore the skirt of it off, and said to her, "Hold on!" About this time the noise made by her and appellant aroused the wife of Green Baldridge, sleeping in the room below, who went to the room above and with several blows with a broomstick, inflicted upon the person of appellant, drove him from the house. Thereupon Mrs. Baldridge took the girl to her room, where she remained through the night. Appellant testified in his own behalf that he entered the room of the prosecutrix pursuant to an agreement previously made with her, and for the purpose of having carnal knowledge of her, and that he had theretofore repeatedly had sexual intercourse with her. He also proved by other witnesses that the reputation of the prosecutrix for virtue was bad.

It is insisted for appellant that he was forced into trial on the second day after his arrest and without an opportunity to procure the attendance of certain witnesses, whose testimony he claims would have shown his innocence of the crime charged. It appears that he was indicted at the October term 1902, of the court; that upon his motion and affidavit the case was then continued, following which he furnished bail for his appearance to answer the indictment at the succeeding term, but failed to do so, which caused a forfeiture of his bond and the issual of a bench warrant for his arrest, which was not executed until the first day of the court and two days before his trial, which occurred at the June term, 1905. Upon the calling of the case for trial, through Attorney W. A. Young, whom he endeavored to employ as his counsel, appellant asked the court that the case be passed until the next day to enable him to procure the attendance of his witnesses. The court refused his request, but did consent to lay the case over until 1 o'clock p. m. of the same day. Thereupon Young informed the court that he would not represent appellant in the trial, and declined to accept employment at his hands unless the court would pass the case until next day. The appellant then in person asked the court to lay the case over one day to enable him to employ an attorney and get his witnesses. The request was again refused by the court, with the statement, however, that he...