Haskins v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 13 November 1886
• Parties: HASKINS v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

1 S.W. 730

HASKINS v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

November 13, 1886

Appeal from Marion circuit court.

Indictment and conviction for detaining a woman against her will, for the purpose of having carnal knowledge with her. Defendant appeals.

S. A Russell, for appellant, Haskins. P. W. Hardin, for the Commonwealth.

BENNETT J.

The appellant was indicated by the grand jury of Marion county Kentucky, for the crime of detaining Mrs. Elizabeth Bricken against her will, for the purpose of having "carnal knowledge with her." On the trial of the cause in the court below, Mrs. Bricken swore that on the morning of the sixth of October, 1884, just before day-light, she was arosed from her sleep, in her bed-room, by some one pulling at her garment, and telling her to remain still; that she grabbed at his face, and then sprang from the bed, and screamed several times, which frightened the person away; that he made his escape from the room through a window. She says that, by the aid of a bright moonlight, which was shining through the window, which was just at the back of her bed, she recognized the appellant as the person who was in her room, etc.; also two persons who were on the street swore that they saw appellant on said morning, not far from Mrs. Bricken's house, going in the direction of it, and in a few minutes after heard screams from that direction.

The jury, after hearing all the evidence, which was strong and convincing, convicted appellant, and he was sentenced to four years' service in the penitentiary of the state. We are not inclined to disturb their verdict, if we could, because it is fully sustained by the evidence. The lower court, by instructions A and B, properly instructed the jury as to the whole law of the case. The instructions asked for by appellant, and refused by the court, abstractly contained correct legal propositions; but, in view of the facts of the case, the court did right in refusing to give them.

Mr Bricken, it seems, was allowed to testify, over the objection of appellant, notwithstanding the fact that he had remained in the court-room, and heard some of the witnesses testify contrary to the instructions of the court. It was within the province of the court, after hearing the witness' excuse for remaining in the court-house, to admit or reject him as a witness. In the absence of anything in the record showing the contrary, we must presume that the...