Golden v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 01 November 1938 |
| Citation | 275 Ky. 208 |
| Parties | Golden v. Commonwealth. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
3. Criminal Law. — Although trial court in criminal case has duty to instruct jury on the whole law of the case whether requested or not, the instructions given must be based on evidence.
4. Homicide. — A killing was not excused on the ground of self-defense because the victim had destroyed the defendant's home by debauching his child, where the victim made no overt act or threat against the defendant at time of shooting.
5. Homicide. — To authorize an instruction on "insanity," there must be some evidence of a diseased mind or something more than a violent uncontrollable desire to kill.
6. Homicide. — A defendant, who in a state of anger takes the life of another, is not excusable on the ground of "insanity."
7. Criminal Law. — In prosecution for willful murder wherein defendant asserted that killing was in self-defense, permitting jury to take to jury room clothing and cap worn by deceased at time he was killed for purpose of inspection for evidence as to whether defendant had shot deceased in the back or when he was facing him and coming on him with a knife was not prejudicial error.
8. Criminal Law. — The Supreme Court is without authority to make change in amount of punishment fixed by jury which is within terms of statute fixing punishment for the particular offense condemned.
9. Witnesses. — In homicide prosecution, court properly permitted question to be asked of defendant whether he had been convicted of a felony to impeach credibility of defendant as a witness.
10. Criminal Law. — In homicide prosecution wherein evidence was admitted that defendant had theretofore been convicted of a felony, court should have on request admonished jury that such evidence might be considered for single purpose of impeaching credibility of defendant as a witness.
11. Criminal Law. — In homicide prosecution, argument of commonwealth's attorney of inferences from fact of defendant's having been before convicted for offense of shooting was not improper conduct, where defendant admitted on examination that he had been convicted on charge of shooting and no request was made for instruction limiting evidence to single purpose of impeaching credibility of defendant as witness.
12. Criminal Law. — In homicide prosecution, closing argument of commonwealth's attorney did not constitute misconduct which would warrant reversal of conviction, where trial court admonished jury to disregard statements of fact which court regarded to be outside the record or which had misstated record and portion of argument to which objections were overruled were within latitude of argument allowed commonwealth's attorney as reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence.
Appeal from Knox Circuit Court.
HIRAM H. OWENS for appellant.
HUBERT MEREDITH, Attorney General, and J.M. CAMPBELL, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Affirming.
The appellant, Green Clay Golden, having been indicted by the grand jury of Knox county, charging him with the willful murder of Simon Blanton, committed by shooting and killing him, he was upon his trial on the charge found guilty and his punishment fixed at life imprisonment.
The only grounds urged for reversal of the judgment are: (1) The alleged error of the court in admitting prejudicial evidence; (2) that the court should have directed the jury to acquit appellant; and, if not that, then an instruction on temporary insanity should have been given; and (3) the alleged prejudicial argument by the commonwealth's attorney.
It is here undenied that appellant shot and killed Simon Blanton when they met in the court-house square of Barbourville, Kentucky, on the afternoon of November 3, 1937.
The commonwealth contended that the killing was done willfully and with malice aforethought and not in the accused's self-defense or when temporarily insane, or even in sudden heat and passion.
The appellant's claim, on the other hand, is that at the time he shot and killed the deceased, he was advancing on him with a knife and that it was necessary to shoot and kill him to save his own life.
The record shows that the appellant lived some three or four miles out from Barbourville, the county seat of Knox county, on the farm of Wiley Saylor, where he and his large family worked the farm as tenants and all together occupied his small three-room residence with him.
Further, it is shown that the deceased, Simon Blanton, a married man, lived with his two bachelor brothers, Garrard and Floyd Blanton, on their large farm some two miles further distant from Barbourville and down the road, beyond the appellant's home.
It is also shown that more than a year prior to the homicide, the deceased's brother Garrard Blanton had seduced and gotten with child appellant's young fifteen year old daughter, Sally Mae, and that on the day before the appellant's tragic shooting of Simon Blanton occurred, this young, deserted mother had carried her bastard child to the home of its father, Garrard Blanton, to be there provided and cared for by him, and from there went on in search of employment.
In the afternoon of this same day, Simon Blanton went with one Hensley to carry this illegitimate child back to its mother at the appellant's home. On arriving there at Golden's home, Hensley took the baby into the house and delivered it to appellant's wife and daughter-in-law. Hensley also at the time asked Mrs. Golden if he might leave his saddle bags there with her and that he would get them as he came back from Barbourville that night. He told them that his pistol was in the saddle bags which he took out, unloaded it and put it back in them.
It appears that while Hensley was thus engaged in the home, the deceased, Simon Blanton, got out of the car and walked to its rear to urinate at the time the appellant's little ten year old granddaughter was walking by, when Blanton, willfully turning himself so as to front her and the women in the home, made an indecent exposure of his person before them, and when reprimanded by the appellant and the father of the child for thus insulting his family, and told to stop and go to the barn for such purposes, he answered,
It is shown that this act of indignity and contempt on the part of the deceased for the humble womanhood of appellant's family greatly excited and enraged both the appellant and his son, the child's father, when their efforts to put a stop to his indecent exposure of his person only elicited from him jeering replies and oaths.
Further the evidence is that early the following morning the appellant took the pistol of Hensley, which he had left the day before with appellant's wife, procured other cartridges with which he reloaded it, when, with his son, Jim, he started about five o'clock to go to Barbourville, to there procure an indictment against Garrad Blanton on the charge of having seduced his daughter, but which he failed to get, as he was told he could not get an indictment upon his testimony, but would have to produce his daughter, Sally Mae, to present her complaint to them.
It is testified by some of the commonwealth's witnesses that they saw the appellant and his son Jim in Barbourville before the homicide occurred, and heard them talking, and that they were "on the lookout" for deceased.
As to this, the witness, Cecil Scott, testified that his attention was attracted to appellant and his son as they walked towards the front of the courthouse when he heard Jim, appellant's son, say, "Where's the son o.b. gone to?" when Green (the appellant) said, "Come on here — come on Jim," and that they then turned and started walking off and that he didn't see them any more until the later shooting when he was standing about the same place, "when he turned around and seen the boy lying on the ground * * * kinder on his face; * * * that Green walked up behind him, more on the right side and reached over * * * and fired in his back;" that as he was shot, "Simon was kinda moving, raising kinda up, a little every time he shot him — just barely;" that the appellant shot him, "the best he could remember," about four or five times right between the shoulders and hips; that the boy (Golden's son, Jim) acted like he was trying to hold the appellant when he jumped on the right side of deceased and "put the gun to his head the last time" and shot him as he lay with his face toward the ground; and that he heard appellant's boy say to him, "Look, what you have done."
Owen Hibbard, also a commonwealth witness, states that when the first shot was fired, "I looked around and there was another shot fired and the man (Blanton) was pitching right toward me"; that after that four more shots were fired right close together and it "looked like he (appellant) was shooting right at his head." When asked, "Did the man that fell ever do or offer to do anything after you looked?" he answered, When asked, "Did you hear the defendant make any statement?" he answered, "Never heard him say nothing, only he says, `You g.d.s.o.b.'" which he said when he was shooting him; that he "had the pistol right down on him." Witness states that he was standing there when the body was picked up, but that he did not see anything in the way of weapon on the ground or in Blanton's hand, or about him.
Gowess McDonald, another commonwealth witness, stated that he was a policeman of Barbourville, and while he was standing near the place where this homicide occurred, his...
To continue reading
Request your trial