Commonwealth v. Griffith
| Decision Date | 20 September 1912 |
| Citation | 149 S.W. 825,149 Ky. 405 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. GRIFFITH. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court. Marshall County.
On trial of Lucy Griffith, resulting in a disagreement, evidence offered by the commonwealth was excluded, and it appeals. Opinion certified to lower court.
See also, 148 Ky. 774, 147 S.W. 418.
John G Lovett, of Benton, and James Garnett, Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth. Berry & Grassham, of Paducah, and Jack E Fisher and Shemwell & Reeder, all of Benton, for appellee.
The appellee, Lucy Griffith, was indicted in the court below for the murder of her husband, Ed. Griffith, who died suddenly from symptoms indicating that he was poisoned. When the case was tried, the jury failed to agree upon a verdict, which resulted in a continuance of the case for another trial. On the trial that was had certain evidence, attempted to be introduced for the commonwealth, was excluded by the circuit court on the ground that it was not competent. These rulings of the court were excepted to by the commonwealth, and it has prosecuted an appeal therefrom, for the purpose of having this court determine whether that court erred in excluding the evidence in question.
It is the theory of the commonwealth that the death of appellee's husband was caused by drinking brandy containing strychnine, which she had placed in it for the purpose of poisoning him; her motive for that act being, as alleged, to kill the husband that she might become the wife of another man, with whom it was claimed she sustained improper relations. The testimony, of the exclusion of which the appellant complains, as shown by the several avowals found in the record, is as follows: Question, propounded to Guy Wallace and E. L. Cooper, who arrived at the house of deceased shortly after he had taken the brandy: "Well did he say anything; if so, what?" To this question it was claimed that the witnesses would have answered that deceased said: "She has poisoned me." To Guy Wallace the following question was propounded: "Did you hear him say anything to his father when he came in; and, if so, what?" To which it is claimed the witness would have answered: ' Dr. Van Stilley was asked what deceased said to him, to which it is claimed he would have answered: '
It is insisted for the commonwealth that this testimony should have been admitted for the reasons: First, that they were part of the res gestæ; second, that they were dying declarations.
The first contention is manifestly untenable. The statements attributed to the deceased were not shown by the evidence to have been so immediately connected with his act of drinking the brandy as to render them competent as a part of the res gestæ. Indeed, the testimony is very indefinite as to the time that intervened between the drinking of the brandy by deceased and the declarations in question. It is true that the witnesses Wallace and Cooper testified that they saw deceased near his house about 10 minutes before the statements attempted to be introduced as evidence were made by him; but it does not appear from their testimony, or any other evidence in the case, whether he drank the brandy said to have contained the strychnine before or after they met him. In Williams v. State, 130 Ala. 107, 30 So. 484 it was held, on a trial under an indictment for murder, testimony as to what passed between deceased and the defendant several minutes after the shooting, and while the former was lying on the ground helpless, constituted no part of the res gestæ of the shooting, and is inadmissible in evidence. In passing on the competency of like testimony in State v. Charles, 111 La. 935, 36 So. 29, the court said: "When, 9 or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Narciso
...because the statement offered was not shown to have been immediately connected to the event leading to illness. Commonwealth v. Griffith, 149 Ky. 405, 149 S.W. 825 (1912); Hall v. State, 132 Ind. 317, 31 N.E. 536 Spontaneity has been an important factor for courts which have declined to adm......
-
Dean v. State
...216, 90 N.W. 733; Shenkenberger v. State, 154 Ind. 630, 57 N.E. 519; Commonwealth v. --, 213 Mass. 563, 100 N.E. 1010; Commonwealth v. Griffith, 149 Ky. 405, 149 S.W. 825; Berry v. State, 63 Ark. 382, 38 S.W. 1038; Jones State, 52 Ark. 347, 12 S.W. 704. It is contended that collateral and i......
-
Dean v. State
...State, 72 Miss. 507, 17 So. 232; Jones v. State, 79 Miss. 309, 30 So. 759; Berry v. State, 63 Ark. 382, 38 S.W. 1038; Commonwealth v. Griffith, 149 Ky. 405, 149 S.W. 825; Shepherd v. U.S., 78 L.Ed. 196. No declaration, or any part of it, is admissible unless competent and relevant, if made ......
-
Stewart v. Commonwealth
...a statement of the victim that he had been poisoned (Mathedy v. Commonwealth, 19 S.W. 977, 14 Ky. Law Rep. 182; Commonwealth v. Griffith, 149 Ky. 405, 149 S.W. 825); that the accused aimed to shoot her (Davis v. Commonwealth, 204 Ky. 809, 265 S.W. 316); that "it was not an accident but it w......