Canterbury v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 10 January 1928 |
| Citation | 1 S.W.2d 976,222 Ky. 510 |
| Parties | CANTERBURY v. COMMONWEALTH. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Carter County.
John Canterbury was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
John M Theobold, of Grayson, and Waugh & Howerton, of Ashland, for appellant.
Frank E. Daugherty, Atty Gen., and G. D. Litsey, Asst. Atty. Gen for the Commonwealth.
John Canterbury was tried in the Carter circuit court on a charge of murder, found guilty of manslaughter, and sentenced to the penitentiary for 21 years. On this appeal it is insisted that the verdict is flagrantly against the evidence, and that the court erred in the introduction of evidence and in an admonition to the trial jury.
The facts are these: On Monday morning the 21st of June, 1926 the appellant shot and killed his son Jesse Canterbury. At the time appellant was driving a small motor truck, and the deceased was standing on the right-hand running board holding to the top of the cab. The appellant was 54 years of age, and had formerly lived on a farm, but about two years before the homicide had moved to the town of Grayson, where he conducted a soft drink establishment in his residence. Aside from his wife, his family consisted of two daughters and two sons, all of whom were grown; Jesse, the deceased being 23 years of age, and a large stalwart man. Appellant claims that Jesse had always been insubordinate, and that, after he grew to manhood, had threatened his life repeatedly, and on several occasions sought to take his life; that his wife was jealous of him, and was continually raising groundless quarrels in which Jesse would participate, taking up for his mother; that on the day before the homicide one Ruby Fraley, a girl of the town, came to his place of business, and one of his daughters invited her into another room to play the organ; that he and both his daughters accompanied her; that later his wife came in and ran the girl away, and became so quarrelsome that he left and spent the night at a shack on his farm. The following morning he drove home in a Ford truck to remove his things to the farm, contemplating a permanent separation. He removed one load early in the morning, and about noon returned for a second load. At this time Jesse appeared, and objected to him removing the ice chest and stock of soft drinks. A quarrel ensued, and Jesse struck him in the breast, and the two threw pop bottles at each other. Jesse procured a pistol, but the older daughter jerked this from his hand, and in turn the other son, George, snatched it from her, and ran and hid it. Jesse went out of the room, saying that he had another pistol, and would get it and shoot him if he attempted to remove the articles in question. While Jesse was gone, the older daughter assisted him in placing the ice chest on the truck, and he started away. Jesse came running out of the house, and tried to get on the rear of the truck. Failing in this, he ran around to the side, and sprang upon the running board. He was holding to the cab with one hand, and presented a pistol with the other. There was a road turning into a park a short distance from the house, and Jesse told him to drive into this road and turn the truck around and go back or he would kill him. He did not do this, and Jesse presented his pistol, whereupon he drew his pistol and fired three times, Jesse falling from the running board. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Renico v. Lett, 09–338.
...198, 204–205, 157 A.2d 65, 69 (1959).7 See, e.g., Cole v. Swan, 4 Greene 32, 33 (Iowa 1853).8 See, e.g., Canterbury v. Commonwealth, 222 Ky. 510, 513–514, 1 S.W.2d 976, 977 (1928).9 As Justice Harlan observed, “[a] power in government to subject the individual to repeated prosecutions for t......
-
State v. Jones
...reach a verdict may amount to coercion, tainting the verdict. Pfeiffer v. State, 35 Ariz. 321, 278 P. 63 (1929); Canterbury v. Commonwealth, 222 Ky. 510, 1 S.W.2d 976 (1928). It was said long ago in Green v. Telfair, 11 How.Pr. (N.Y.) 260 (1853), that "(a)n attempt to influence the jury, by......
-
Canterbury v. Commonwealth
...of manslaughter and his punishment fixed at 15 years in the penitentiary. This case has been here twice before. See Canterbury v. Com., 222 Ky. 510, 1 S.W.2d 976, Id., 227 Ky. 696, 13 S.W.2d 1035. For a statement of the facts reference is made to the first opinion. The regular judge had rep......
-
Canterbury v. Commonwealth
...of manslaughter and his punishment fixed at 15 years in the penitentiary. This case has been here twice before. See Canterbury v. Com., 222 Ky. 510, 1 S.W. (2d) 976, and Id., 227 Ky. 696, 13 S.W. (2d) 1035. For a statement of the facts reference is made to the first The regular judge had re......