Bethel v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 12 December 1882 |
| Citation | 80 Ky. 526,4 Ky.L.Rptr. 487 |
| Parties | Bethel v. The Commonwealth. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
1. Appellant being charged with rape, was, upon his motion entitled to have the jury instructed as to the whole law applicable to that offense, and any of its degrees as defined by sections 262 and 263 of the Criminal Code.
2. It was error to appellant's prejudice not to instruct the jury as asked, so that they could consider the whole case and declare appellant's guilt, if any, of that degree of the offense of which they entertained no reasonable doubt.
APPEAL FROM BARREN CIRCUIT COURT.
PORTER & RITTER FOR APPELLANT.
1. In refusing the instruction asked for by the appellant, the court took from the jury the consideration of the evidence that appellant, if guilty of anything, was guilty of only an attempt to commit a rape.
2. He was entitled to have the jury instructed as to the degrees of the offense. (7 Bush, 93; 14 Ib., 570.)
P. W HARDIN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, FOR APPELLEE.
No brief.
The appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the offense of rape, and sentenced to the penitentiary for the period of twenty years.
The prosecutrix admitted on cross-examination that when she first complained of the alleged outrage by the defendant upon her person, she said he attempted to rape her, but failed; that she told him two white men were coming, and he fled before his purpose was accomplished.
Her explanation of this statement, which she was proven to have made by several witnesses, was that she thought the men to whom she complained had no right to know whether the appellant had succeeded, and she was ashamed to tell them.
The appellant is a negro boy seventeen years old, and the prosecutrix thirty-three years old, and tolerably healthy.
Under this state of facts, the counsel appointed to defend the appellant asked the court to instruct the jury in substance that if they entertained a reasonable doubt of the appellant being proven guilty of rape, they should find him guilty of an assault with intent to commit that offense, and fix his punishment by any fine and imprisonment in the county jail in their discretion.
This instruction was refused, and the jury instructed alone as to the offense of rape, and the reasonable doubt relative to his guilt of that offense.
Of this the appellant complains. Section 263 of the Criminal Code provides that " the offenses named in each of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial