Douglas v. Com.
| Citation | 211 S.W.2d 156,307 Ky. 391 |
| Parties | DOUGLAS v. COMMONWEALTH. |
| Decision Date | 07 May 1948 |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Whitley County; J. B. Johnson, Judge.
Luther Douglas was convicted of shooting and wounding without malice, and he appeals.
Judgment reversed.
Glenn W. Denham and W. L. Rose, both of Williamsburg, for appellant.
A. E Funk, Atty. Gen., and John C. Talbott, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Luther Douglas was indicted for the malicious shooting and wounding of Harry Monhollen. Upon trial he was convicted of shooting and wounding without malice and given a fine in the sum of $500 and jail sentence of 12 months. He appeals.
The testimony of the Commonwealth shows that the three Monhollen boys, Harry, Jack, and Carl, while walking along the highway on their way to Jellico, Tennessee, a taxi belonging to appellant, Luther Douglas, in which there were five or six occupants, passed them and that upon approaching the boys the driver of the taxi shot a pistol out of the window three times and a moment later fired three more shots one of which struck Harry Monhollen, a lad of eight years, in the right leg causing a flesh wound. These three boys identified the appellant by the taxi they knew he owned.
J. L Davis, the Sheriff of Whitley County, testified that he was called to investigate an accident which occurred at Mountain Ash that same Sunday afternoon; and that when he arrived at the scene of the accident he found that the car of appellant had run into the rear of another car which had stopped at a railroad crossing.
Robert Steely of Williamsburg testified, over the objection of appellant, that on this same Sunday afternoon he was in Jellico taking pictures of the postoffice when appellant, after having driven by in an automobile, backed up and inquired of Steely what he was doing and drew a pistol on him; and that after finishing taking the pictures and while approaching his own car, appellant got out of his car and walked over and asked him where he was from and then told him to 'get going.'
The appellant had three of the five persons who accompanied him from Jellico to Williamsburg on this Sunday afternoon testified that they saw no boys along the highway and that no shots were fired.
Appellant is here urging reversal upon two grounds: (1) Incompetent evidence and (2) Improper argument on the part of the Commonwealth Attorney.
The incompetent evidence complained of as being extremely prejudicial to appellant was (1) that appellant drew a pistol on Robert Steely in Jellico, and (2) that appellant was required to testify during cross-examination that he had paid a fine that same day for having a blackjack concealed in his cab. In considering these complaints we must keep in mind the fact that the appellant was being tried for malicious shooting with intent to kill. The general rule concerning admission of evidence of other crimes is stated concisely in 20 Am.Jur., Evidence, Sec. 309: 'A person, when placed upon trial for the commission of an offense against the criminal laws, is to be convicted, if at all, on evidence showing his guilt of the particular offense charged in the indictment against him.'
The exceptions to this rule are found in 20 Am.Jur., Evidence Sec. 310, as follows: 'Evidence of other crimes is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kelley
...23 Cal.2d 550, 145 P.2d 7, as to the 'extreme caution' required in considering evidence of other offenses, and Douglas v. Commonwealth, 307 Ky. 391, 211 S.W.2d 156, 158, as to resulting prejudice when a 'finely intentioned and faithful prosecuting attorney in his zeal goes a little too far ......
-
Hill v. Commonwealth, No. 2006-CA-001599-MR (Ky. App. 2/22/2008)
...People v. Stout, 4 Parker, Cr.R. 71 (N .Y.), 1 Wigmore on Evidence § 304, and 1 Jones on Evidence § 144)). In Douglas v. Commonwealth, 307 Ky. 391, 211 S.W.2d 156 (1948), the former Court of Appeals, quoting from 20 Am.Jur. Evidence § 310, referred to a common scheme or plan as one "embraci......
- Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Bailey
-
Quarles v. Com.
...it. The purpose of their introduction was unfair, being merely to show the defendant to be an evil, lawless person. In Douglas v. Commonwealth, 307 Ky. 391, 211 S.W.2d 156, we held competent as tending to prove identity testimony that the accused, earlier in the afternoon of the commission ......