Commonwealth v. Hicks

Decision Date23 September 1904
Citation82 S.W. 265,118 Ky. 637
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH v. HICKS.
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Graves County.

"To be officially reported."

Ulysus Hicks was indicted as an accessory before the fact to the suicide of another, and from an order directing a verdict in favor of defendant the commonwealth appeals. Affirmed.

W. H Hester, N. B. Hays, and L. Mix, for the Commonwealth.

BARKER J.

Ulysus Hicks was indicted by the grand jury of Graves county charged with being accessory before the fact to the self-murder, or suicide, of one Chris Haggard. A trial resulted in the court's sustaining a motion of the accused for a peremptory instruction to find him not guilty made at the close of the commonwealth's testimony. To review this judgment this appeal is prosecuted under section 337 of the Criminal Code.

The evidence for the commonwealth was substantially as follows Tom Sears testified that he was standing at the corner of Hunt's drug store, when Hicks came along, and smiled, and said: "I have got to go to the drug store, and get Chris Haggard a quarter's worth of morphine. I reckon he's going to kill himself." Shortly afterwards, he met the accused, who told him that he had obtained the morphine, and also that he had delivered it to Haggard. After the death of Haggard, Hicks told the witness of a conversation which took place between himself, Haggard, and one Arnett, on the Saturday night before the purchase of the morphine, in which Haggard said that would be the last night that they would ever be together. Mrs. Lizzie Hicks, a sister of Haggard, and a relative by marriage of the accused, testified that, on Wednesday preceding the death of Haggard, the accused offered to bet her that Chris Haggard would not be alive until Saturday night. Ben Hunt, the druggist, testified that he sold the accused half a drachm of morphine, which he said he was purchasing for a young man by the name of Haggard. Mrs. Lucy Hicks, another sister of Haggard, and also a relative to the accused by marriage, testified to the following conversation between the accused and Haggard: "On Wednesday night before he died, Ulysus asked him, when he started home, what night he had set for him to come back, and Chris told him Friday night, and Ulysus says: 'Put it off. I can't come.' And Chris says: 'I will put off killing myself until Saturday night, and you all can come to my burying Sunday."' At the time of this conversation the witness said her brother Chris was playing the guitar, and "seemed like he was just as lively as he could be. I didn't think there was anything the matter with him." Dr. A. A. Hurt testified that, on the Saturday night of the week in which the morphine was purchased by the accused, he was called to the bedside of Chris Haggard. The witness said: "When I got down there, he was lying in bed, unconscious, like he was nearly dead, and I inquired of his mother how long he had been that way, and she said he came in about 10 o'clock at night and she told me how he did, and I soon decided he was poisoned on morphine, or some preparation of opium. From what his mother told me, and his symptoms, I decided he was suffering from some preparation of opium." To the question: "Did you ever succeed in arousing him?" the witness said: "Well, yes, sir; to some extent. We worked with him, and got him up out of bed, and walked him around some, but could not keep him aroused but for a few minutes at a time. He would go right back to sleep again. Q. Did he send or call for any one? A. Yes, sir; about twice, I think. Q. Who was it? A. Ulysus Hicks." The witness testified that Haggard died from the effects of opium, or morphine. Mrs. Lucy Hicks being recalled, stated that, after the burial of Haggard, the accused said that he knew more about Chris' troubles than anybody, but would never tell it.

The crime with which the accused stood charged is, we believe, a somewhat novel one, certainly in Kentucky. Blackstone, in his Commentaries (volume 4, p. 189), says: "Felonious homicide is an act of a very different nature from the former, being the killing of a human creature, of any age or sex, without justification or excuse. This may be done either by killing one-self, or another man. Self-murder, the pretended heroism, but real cowardice, of the Stoic philosophers, who destroyed themselves to avoid those ills which they had not the fortitude to endure, though the attempting it seems to be countenanced by the civil law, yet was punished by the Athenian law with cutting off the hand which committed the desperate deed. And also the law of England wisely and religiously considers that no man hath a power to destroy life, but by commission from God, the author of it; and as the suicide is guilty of a double offense --one spiritual, in invading the prerogative of the Almighty, and rushing into his immediate presence uncalled for; the other temporal, against the King, who hath an interest in the preservation of all his subjects--the law has therefore ranked this among the highest crimes, making it a peculiar species of felony, a felony committed on one's self. And this admits of accessories before the fact, as well as other felonies; for if one persuades another to kill himself, and he does so, the adviser is guilty of murder." In Bishop's New Criminal Law (section 1187) it is said "The same principle which forbids one to take the life of another prohibits equally the taking of his own life. Therefore...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • State v. Petry
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 16 Diciembre 1980
    ...§ 5180 (1889) (see State v. Bogue, 52 Kan. 79, 86-87, 34 P. 410, 412 (1893)); Ky.Stat. § 1128 (1903) (see Commonwealth v. Hicks, 118 Ky. 637, 642, 82 S.W. 265, 266 (1904); La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 14:24 (West) (1974) (see State v. McAllister, La., 366 So.2d 1340 (1978)); Me.Rev.Stat.Ann., Tit. 17......
  • Kevorkian v. Thompson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • 6 Enero 1997
    ...70 Mo. 412 [(1979)]; Commonwealth v. Bowen, 13 Mass. 356 [(1816)]; or Commonwealth v. Mink, 123 Mass. 422 [(1877)]; Commonwealth v. Hicks, 118 Ky. 637 (82 S.W. 265) [(1904)]; Burnett v. People, 204 Ill. 208 (68 N.E. 505, 66 L.R.A. 304) [(1903)]; Blackburn v. State, 23 Ohio St. 146 In the la......
  • Standefer v. United States, 79-383
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 9 Junio 1980
    ...§ 5180 (1889) (see State v. Bogue, 52 Kan. 79, 86-87, 34 P. 410, 412 (1893)); Ky.Stat. § 1128 (1903) (see Commonwealth v. Hicks, 118 Ky. 637, 642, 82 S.W. 265, 266 (1904); Miss.Code § 1026 (1906) (see Fleming v. State, 142 Miss. 872, 880-881, 108 So. 143, 144-145 (1926)); Mont.Penal Code An......
  • Reed v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 19 Marzo 1907
    ...or tried, unless otherwise provided in this chapter." In construing the statute supra, this court said, in Commonwealth v. Hicks, 26 Ky. Law Rep. 511, 82 S. W. 265, 118 Ky. 637: "The very object of the statute is to make the punishment of the accessory entirely independent of the conviction......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • What Zombies Can Teach Law Students: Popular Text Inclusion in Law and Literature
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 66-3, March 2015
    • Invalid date
    ...for involuntary manslaughter where the defendant provided a weapon to an intoxicated person who shot himself); Commonwealth v. Hicks, 82 S.W. 265 (Ky. 1904) (affirming the conviction of an accessory to suicide); Nicholson ex rel. Gollot v. State, 672 So. 2d 744 (Miss. 1996) (affirming that ......
  • What about legalized assisted suicide?
    • United States
    • Issues in Law & Medicine Vol. 8 No. 4, March 1993
    • 22 Marzo 1993
    ...(finding inciter to suicide guilty of murder when causal connection between incitement and death established); and Commonwealth v. Hicks, 82 S.W. 265 (Ky. 1904) (finding accessory to suicide before the fact guilty of murder as principal in the second (16) But see, State v. Marti, 290 N.W.2d......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT