Cline v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 21 April 1933 |
| Citation | 59 S.W.2d 577,248 Ky. 609 |
| Parties | CLINE v. COMMONWEALTH. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Harlan County.
Raymond Cline was convicted of murder, and he appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Ray O Shehan and T. R. McBrayer, both of Harlan, for appellant.
Bailey P. Wootton, Atty. Gen., and Francis M. Burke, Asst. Atty Gen., for the Commonwealth.
At about 8:30 p. m., on November 19, 1932, appellant and defendant below, Raymond Cline, shot and killed Hugh Rickard in front of defendant's residence in Lynch, Harlan county, Ky. He was afterwards indicted and charged with murder, and at his trial thereunder he was convicted and punished by confinement in the penitentiary for life. On this appeal from the verdict, after his motion for a new trial was overruled, and from the judgment thereon, his counsel argue but one ground as prejudicial error authorizing a reversal of the judgment and the granting of a new trial, and which is That the court erred in failing and refusing to submit to the jury the issue of defendant's sanity at the time of the killing. There was no motion by defendant's counsel for such instruction, but under the universal rule that it is the duty of the court in criminal causes to give to the jury the entire law applicable to the case, the failure to move for such an instruction creates no waiver of defendant's right thereto, if the evidence introduced at the trial authorized it. So that, the sole question for determination is: Whether the record contains sufficient evidence to authorize the submission to the jury of that issue?
Deceased hAD formerly boarded with defendant at his residence in Lynch, but hAD ceased to do so for some time prior to the homicide and he hAD moved to the town of Cumberland, where he hAD engaged, according to the witnesses, in the "feed store" business, and was operating it at the time he was killed. A sister of defendant's wife (Cleo Wood) lived at his home, but she hAD been away for a short while prior to the killing, and on the night it occurred deceased and two other young men were about to start on a trip from Cumberland to Lynch to be mADe in a one-seated automobile belonging to decedent, with a rumble seat at the rear. The three learned in some way that Miss Wood desired to return to the home of her brother-in-law in Lynch and agreed to take her along, she occupying the front seat with deceased, who drove the car, and the two young men occupying the rumble seat. They drove up in front of the residence of defendant, which was some thirty feet from the sidewalk or street, and Miss Wood alighted and hAD about started up the steps from the sidewalk when she was met by appellant, who was in his shirt sleeves and hAD a pistol, but which she did not see when she met him. He went to the side of the automobile opposite deceased, who was still occupying the driver's seat, and said to him, according to the witnesses in the rumble seat: "Hugh, you damned s____ of a b____, as low down and as big a coward as you, I don't want you stopping in front of my door." Deceased replied: "Go on Nick (which was a name by which defendant was known) I don't want any trouble." And defendant then drew his pistol with his right hand from his hip pocket and punched the deceased with it, the latter throwing up his hands, and then defendant fired five shots into his heAD, killing him instantly. The substance of the above testimony was given by both occupants of the rumble seat and in its main features was corroborated by Miss Wood, the sister-in-law of defendant.
In giving his account of what occurred at the immediate time of the killing, defendant testified that he knew before he reached the automobile that the deceased was one of its occupants and that when he got there he said: "Hugh drive away from my plant, I don't want any trouble, I have asked you to stay away." When deceased said: and threw his hand to his right hip pocket, when defendant commenced firing at him and emptied his pistol without ceasing. He...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Commonwealth v. Clark
-
Commonwealth v. Clark
... ... [292 Mass. 415] ... Commonwealth v. Cavalier, 284 Pa. St. 311, 321, 131 ... A. 229; State v. Peel, 23 Mont. 358, 371, 372, 59 P ... 169,75 Am.St.Rep. 529; Hurst v. State, 40 Tex. Cr ... App. 378, 386, 46 S.W. 635,50 S.W. 719; Chriswell v ... State, 171 Ark. 255, 259, 283 S.W. 981; Cline v ... Commonwealth, 248 Ky. 609, 613, 59 S.W.(2d) 577. A judge ... need not, and ordinarily should not, though requested, charge ... the jury with reference to a principle of law which has no ... bearing upon any facts which the jury can find from the ... evidence. Commonwealth v. Trippi, 268 ... ...
-
Newsome v. Com.
...S.W.2d 77; Sharp v. Commonwealth, 308 Ky. 765, 215 S.W.2d 983; Horn v. Commonwealth, 292 Ky. 587, 167 S.W.2d 58; and Cline v. Commonwealth, 248 Ky. 609, 59 S.W.2d 577. The simple formulations of the McNaghten Rule are thus set forth in Professor Jerome Hall's law journal article at page '* ......
- Cline v. Commonwealth