Bowman v. Commonwealth
| Citation | 96 Ky. 8 |
| Parties | Bowman v. Commonwealth. |
| Decision Date | 22 September 1894 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Kentucky |
APPEAL FROM KNOX CIRCUIT COURT.
DISHMAN & HAYS AND JNO. T. HAYS FOR APPELLANT.
WM. J. HENDRICK AND W. R. RAMSEY FOR APPELLEE.
JUDGE PRYOR DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
The appellant in this case was jointly indicted with Stephen Jones for the murder of William Reeder, and on the trial was convicted and sentenced to the State prison for life. It is charged in the indictment that Bowman and Jones conspired and agreed with each other to take the life of the deceased, and, in pursuance of the conspiracy, the offense was committed. Other counts in the indictment charge the one with aiding and abetting the other in the commission of the felony. At the time of the killing the appellant Bowman was deputy marshal of the town of Barbourville, and Jones, who is indicted with him, the police judge of that town. Jones had issued a warrant for the arrest of the deceased for disorderly conduct, and placed it in the hands of the appellant for execution.
The unfortunate young man, excited by liquor, was flourishing his pistol in the streets of the town, where many people had congregated on that day, it being county court. He was defiant, and evidently proposed to resist any arrest, and the want of vigilance on the part of those intrusted with the execution of the law led him, no doubt, to believe that he would not be molested by any of the town officers. He was not content with having his own way on the streets of the town, but about eight o'clock at night entered the private dwelling of Mrs. Thompson, whose daughter was entertaining some company, and presented his pistol at a young man calling upon her, and forced him to leave the room, and when the young man left presented the pistol at Miss Thompson. The noise and excitement produced from the conduct of the deceased caused the appellant to proceed to Mrs. Thompson's house, and when he entered, the pistol was presented at him more than once, and the hand in which the pistol was held knocked down by Mrs. Thompson, and the parties told to leave her house.
The appellant was evidently in fear of the deceased — at least neither himself or Jones attempted to arrest him at that time. After he left the house of Mrs. Thompson the police judge issued a warrant for his arrest, and placed it in the hands of the appellant, and when the deceased was told of the warrant and the intention of the officer to arrest, he defied both the appellant and Jones, presenting his pistol at the appellant, saying that they and fifteen more men could not arrest him. He declared that the police judge could not have him arrested, and did not intend to be arrested by him or by any one with a warrant from him. When the arrest was finally attempted, with the purpose on the part of the officer to at once execute the writ, the deceased kept his pistol leveled upon him, but when shot was shot in the back of the head. It was after night, and there were four or five pistol shots, and the appellant admits that when he fired the fourth shot he did not see the deceased, and this, doubtless, was the shot that killed the deceased. The appellant and the deceased were on friendly terms, and the officer was constantly endeavoring to induce the deceased to submit to the arrest, and offered, if he would do so, to take him to his home and keep him all night, and not to the jail, but instead of listening to the conciliatory proposals of the officer it is manifest, from this record, that the purpose of the deceased was to take life before he would submit to an arrest by him. One witness stated that the appellant said there would be a killing in town about twelve o'clock that night, and this proof, together with the fact that the appellant and Jones were consulting together, and had determined to arrest the deceased, has been regarded as evidence of a conspiracy by the two to murder the deceased, and an instruction based upon that hypothesis given the jury.
What is the duty of an officer with a warrant of arrest in his possession against one charged with a misdemeanor, when confronted with a pistol in the hands of the accused, accompanied with the declaration that he will not submit to the mandate of the Commonwealth? Would a...
To continue reading
Request your trial