Buckhannon v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 29 September 1887
• Citation: 5 S.W. 358,86 Ky. 110
• Parties: BUCKHANNON v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

5 S.W. 358

86 Ky. 110

BUCKHANNON v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

September 29, 1887

Appeal from circuit court, Wolfe county.

Wood &amp Day, for appellant.

P. W Hardin, for appellee.

HOLT J.

The imposition of the death penalty in this case has led to a careful inspection of the record. The performance of this unpleasant duty has, however, satisfied us beyond all question that the killing was not only inhuman, but utterly devoid of excuse. The accused, without warning, cruelly shot down the deceased, when he was performing neighborly and kindly acts for him. Drunkenness, that by far the most frightful source of crime in our state, was the cause of it. The wisdom of the common law held this to be no excuse. Our statute makes it an offense; and one crime should not privilege another. Intoxication often, indeed usually excites the homicidal passions, and makes one hostis humani generis; and if it could serve to excuse or mitigate a greater offense, it would be a shelter for the bad element in society, and an invitation to the commission of crime. Such a rule would endanger the very existence of the social fabric, and is forbidden by every consideration of public policy.

Counsel earnestly urge two reasons for a reversal of the sentence First, that the accused was not allowed to prove the condition of his mind at the time of the killing; and, second, because the court not only did not inform the jury why evidence of drunkenness was admitted, and failed to define manslaughter to them, but virtually told them that they must convict the accused of either murder or manslaughter, and yet, in another instruction, said to them, if he did not know that the act was wrong, or did not have sufficient will power to refrain from doing it, that then they should acquit him upon the ground of insanity.

Without having the witness detail the words, acts, and behavior of the accused, she was asked by his counsel whether at the time or just before the killing he had mind enough to know right from wrong, and sufficient will power to control his actions. This evidence upon the facts of this case was properly rejected. It is evident, if his mind was affected, that it was the result of his temporary intoxication. There is not even a pretext that he was insane. It clearly appears that he was not, but that his condition arose from his then voluntary drunkenness. Not only was the testimony therefore...