Coppage v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 13 June 1868 |
| Citation | 66 Ky. 532 |
| Parties | Coppage v. Commonwealth. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
1. On the trial in the circuit court the defendant's attorney for the sole purpose, as avowed, of showing the self-contradiction or frailty of the memory of a witness for the Commonwealth, offered the written statement of the testimony of the witness before the examining court which he had subscribed after the examining trial; to which the prosecuting attorney objected; but the court admitted it, and thereupon, said that " the defendant's attorney had let down the fence, and that all is now before the jury. " This voluntary declaration was ultrajudicial and misleading. It erroneously implied not only that the written statement was evidence of all the facts contained in it, but also that it was the more impressive as proof offered by the accused himself. While that written statement was competent for the purpose for which it was read, it was incompetent as evidence of the truth of the facts it recited.
2. Oral declarations of the court, which are virtual instructions being merely oral, are illegal, according to the Criminal Code.
APPEAL FROM HARRISON CIRCUIT COURT.
W. W TRIMBLE and A. H. WARD, For Appellant,
CITED--
2 Met., 391; Rutherford vs. Commonwealth.
2 Duvall, 531; Hudson vs. Commonwealth.
1 Greenleaf on Ev., sec. 220, & c.
2 Met., 24; Champ vs. Commonwealth.
JOHN RODMAN, Attorney General, For Appellee,
CITED--
3 Met., 13; Burns vs. Commonwealth.
Sentenced to the penitentiary for two years on an indictment for the arson of a church, the appellant seeks a reversal of the judgment of conviction on the sole ground of imputed error in impressing on the jury incompetent evidence.
After the constable, who apprehended him, had testified that he freely confessed his guilt, his counsel, for the sole purpose, as avowed, of showing that witness's self-contradiction or frailty of memory, offered his own written statement of his testimony before the examining court which he had subscribed after the examining trial; to which the prosecuting attorney objected; but the court admitted it and thereupon, said that " the defendant's attorney had let down the fence, and that all is now before the jury. "
This voluntary declaration was ultra-judicial and misleading. It erroneously implied not only that the written statement was evidence of all the facts contained in it, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial