Handshoe v. Com.
| Decision Date | 29 September 1922 |
| Citation | 243 S.W. 1024,195 Ky. 762 |
| Parties | HANDSHOE v. COMMONWEALTH. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Floyd County.
Thee Handshoe was convicted for transporting spirituous liquors and he appeals. Reversed, with directions for a new trial.
B. M James, of Prestonsburg, for appellant.
Charles I. Dawson, Atty. Gen., and Thos. B. McGregor, Asst. Atty Gen., for the Commonwealth.
The defendant was convicted of transporting spirituous liquor in violation of section 2554a1, Ky. Statutes, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $75 and confinement in the county jail for 30 days.
Numerous grounds are assigned for reversal, but being convinced that the evidence was wholly insufficient to warrant a submission of the case to the jury, we shall confine our discussion to the sufficiency and competency of the evidence and leave open all other questions raised upon this appeal.
The defendant did not testify or offer any evidence in his own behalf, and the commonwealth only proved that a quart jar of moonshine whisky was found buried in the garden of defendant's nephew the next day after defendant's arrival from his home about 40 miles distant for a visit, and that defendant's reputation "as a transporter" of such liquor was bad. Clearly, there was nothing in this evidence to warrant more than a suspicion that the defendant had transported or hidden the whisky found in his nephew's garden shortly after his arrival at the latter's home, and even that suspicion rests almost if not entirely upon the evidence of his bad reputation, which was clearly incompetent and admitted over his objections and exceptions.
Conceding that such evidence is generally incompetent except in rebuttal after the defendant has put his character in issue by testifying himself or introducing proof of good character, as is the thoroughly established rule (Owens v. Commonwealth, 188 Ky. 498, 222 S.W. 524), it is suggested by the attorney for the commonwealth that it was doubtlessly admitted by the trial court by reason of section 15, c. 33, of the 1922 Acts, which declares such testimony admissible in any prosecution under that act, but, as is also conceded, the provisions of that act are inapplicable here, because the indictment was returned before its adoption and under the prohibitory act of 1920, which contains no such provision.
It is therefore clear that the defendant was convicted upon mere...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Commonwealth
... ... provision of our fundamental law. Price v ... Commonwealth, 195 Ky. 711, 243 S.W. 927; Handshoe ... v. Commonwealth, 195 Ky. 762, 243 S.W. 1024; Fletcher ... v. Commonwealth, 196 Ky. 625, 245 S.W. 134." ... The ... ...
-
Hodges v. Com.
...suspicion of Hodges' involvement in the crime arises from the circumstances shown . Suspicion alone is not enough. Handshoe v. Commonwealth, 195 Ky. 762, 243 S.W. 1024; Baird v. Commonwealth, 241 Ky. 795, 45 S.W.2d Hodges had no duty to explain why he was where the officers found him. There......
-
Keith v. Commonwealth
... ... other provision of our fundamental law. Price v ... Commonwealth, 195 Ky. 711, 243 S.W. 927; Handshoe v ... Commonwealth, 195 Ky. 762, 243 S.W. 1024; Fletcher ... v. Commonwealth, 196 Ky. 625, 245 S.W. 134 ... 3. It ... is next ... ...
-
Thompson v. Com.
... ... that the admission of such evidence against the appellant ... was error of such character as necessarily prejudiced his ... substantial rights." ... The ... conclusion thus stated in Fletcher v. Com., supra, was also ... expressed in the following cases: Handshoe v. Com., ... 195 Ky. 762, 243 S.W. 1024; Davidson v. Com., 196 ... Ky. 307, 244 S.W. 688; Mullens v. Com., 196 Ky. 613, ... 245 S.W. 278 ... Obviously, ... the third ground urged by the appellant for the reversal of ... the judgment must be sustained. The requirement of ... ...