Graves v. Com.
| Decision Date | 03 December 1954 |
| Citation | 273 S.W.2d 380 |
| Parties | Lee GRAVES, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
L. S. Rogers, Franklin, for appellant.
J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., William F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Lee Graves has appealed from a judgment sentencing him to twelve months in jail for involuntary manslaughter in connection with the death of Mrs. Roy Brown.
At about 8:30 p. m. on the evening of January 17, 1953, Graves was driving a pickup truck through a rural section of Simpson County. He was accompanied by one Freeman and a young lady by the name of Ann Sickles. Near the home of Roy Brown, the truck ran into a ditch and the occupants were unable to extricate it. Suel, the son of Mr. and Mrs. Brown, heard the commotion made by the truck or its occupants and went to investigate. Mr. Brown had already retired for the night. Mrs. Brown, upon learning that one of the occupants of the truck was a girl, suggested to her son, Suel, that he invite her into the house. Graves and Freeman, though not invited, came into the house with the girl. There is testimony that the three of them were intoxicated and that Graves in particular was 'awfully drunk.' Freeman inquired of Mrs. Brown about a tractor with which to pull the truck out of the ditch, and upon learning that the Brown tractor was not available he requested Mrs. Brown to call by telephone a boy by the name of Johnson. While Mrs. Brown was using the telephone, the defendant Graves staggered around the room and later asked Suel if he had a call in for him. The boy replied, 'I don't know what you are talking about,' to which Graves responded, 'If you don't know tonight you will know before morning.'
Mrs. Brown succeeded in getting the Johnson boy on the line. She then handed the telephone to Freeman. Graves took the instrument from Freeman, saying, 'God damn it, give me the telephone.'
Freeman requested Suel to get a pair of wire pliers for him in order that he might cut the fence in which the truck was entangled. Suel went into another part of the house and soon returned with a pair of tin snips. Mrs. Brown then left the room and went into the bedroom where her husband, who had been disturbed by the loud talking, had got out of bed and was in the act of dressing. Mrs. Brown said to her husband, Mr. Brown then went into the front room and ordered the visitors to leave, telling them that his wife was sick and he intended to call a doctor. The visitors did leave and Brown returned to the bedroom where he found his wife nauseated and in a weakened condition.
The defendant Graves was soon back at the house, pounding on the front door and demanding admittance. Not being admitted, he then kicked on the side of the house and rapped on the window of the bedroom to which Mrs. Brown had retired. Within a short time, Mrs. Brown lapsed into unconsciousness and died three days later from the effects of a cerebral hemorrhage. She was 43 years old and had suffered from hypertension for some ten or twelve years.
Dr. Moore, who attended Mrs. Brown on the night she became ill, testified that he had previously treated her in 1947 and that her blood pressure at that time was 206 over 120; that this was extremely severe for a woman of her age. He testified that with such a high blood pressure a cerebral accident could be expected at any time. He gave it as his opinion, however, that the cerebral hemorrhage suffered by Mrs. Brown was a direct result of the conduct of Freeman and Graves on the evening in question.
Dr. Beasley, who had treated Mrs. Brown over a period of some ten years, corroborated the testimony of Dr. Moore as to her physical condition, but the effect of his testimony is that he could not state the cerebral hemorrhage was the direct result of the disturbance caused by the defendant Graves and his friend Freeman.
Counsel for Graves relies on several grounds for reversal but we consider it necessary to discuss only the question whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lofthouse v. Com.
...which was the death of the victim. J. Roberson, Kentucky Criminal Law and Procedure § 278 (2d ed. Anderson 1927); e.g., Graves v. Commonwealth, Ky., 273 S.W.2d 380 (1954); Hubbard v. Commonwealth, 304 Ky. 818, 202 S.W.2d 634 (1947). In Graves, the defendant had unlawfully entered the victim......
-
Baraka v. Commonwealth, No. 2003-CA-000454-MR (Ky. App. 2/27/2004), No. 2003-CA-000454-MR.
...a sufficiency of evidence question and not a challenge to the expert medical testimony as in the present case, in Graves v. Commonwealth, Ky., 273 S.W.2d 380, 382 (1954), it was held in Kentucky that a conviction can be sustained for a death caused by fright, fear, or terror alone, even tho......
-
Pearson v. State, CR-90-1405
...the night while those injuries occurred was too speculative a basis upon which to predicate criminal liability. Compare Graves v. Commonwealth, 273 S.W.2d 380 (Ky.1954). In Graves, the accused was a drunk driver who ran his truck into a ditch in front of the victim's house. He went to the v......
-
Phillips v. Com., No. 1997-SC-0519-MR.
...which was the death of the victim. J. Roberson, Kentucky Criminal Law and Procedure § 278 (2d ed. Anderson 1927); e.g., Graves v. Commonwealth, Ky., 273 S.W.2d 380 (1954); Hubbard v. Commonwealth, 304 Ky. 818, 202 S.W.2d 634 (1947). This principle did not always require that death result fr......