Hill v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 21 January 1930
• Citation: 232 Ky. 453,23 S.W.2d 930
• Parties: HILL v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

23 S.W.2d 930

232 Ky. 453

HILL v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

January 21, 1930

Appeal from Circuit Court, Fayette County.

Lewis Hill was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

George R. Smith and A. F. Byrd, both of Lexington, for appellant.

J. W Cammack, Atty. Gen., and George H. Mitchell, Asst. Atty Gen., for the Commonwealth.

LOGAN J.

It was on the 22d day of March, 1926, that Lillian Hill, a little girl 9 years old at the time, returned to her home at 238 Rand avenue, Lexington, Ky. from school about noon and found her mother in a dying condition as the result of wounds about her head which had been inflicted by a hatchet. The body of her mother was in the bathroom, but her head was in the living room resting in a pool of blood which had flowed from the wounds. Her mother's head was wrapped tightly in a rug, and she was unconscious. The little girl hurried to her and tried to get her to speak, but she did not. She then went to the windows and raised the shades which had been pulled down. Next she hurried to a next door neighbor in a home a few feet away and reported that something awful had happened to her mother. The neighbor hastened into the room and discovered the condition as briefly described. Another neighbor came in immediately thereafter, and, in looking around, discovered blood in the kitchen and that the trapdoor leading from the kitchen into the cellar was open. He heard a groan in the cellar and, descending the steps, he found the appellant, Lewis Hill, bloody and apparently unconscious lying in the cellar. The police were notified, and they came and took charge of the matter and removed Lewis Hill and his wife, Kate Hill, to the hospital.

The family of Lewis Hill consisted of his wife Kate Hill, a son, Julius Hill, about 19 years of age, and the daughter, Lillian Hill, about 9 years of age. The family resided in the southern part of the city of Lexington in a one-story brick building with 5 rooms and a bath all on the same floor. The rear of the building opened on a street known as Engman avenue, and fronted on Rand avenue. The house and porches occupied almost the entire space between the two streets, with a small yard on the front side of the house and a small space in the rear on the Engman avenue side. In front there was a porch extending across the entire width of the house, about 16 feet in length, and about 5 feet in depth. There was a door and window on the front porch. The door opened into a room, and just back of that room was another, and to the rear of that was another. The rooms were all of about the same size. To the left of the front room after entering the house was a door which opened into the living room. To the rear of the living room was the bathroom. The bathroom was about 8 feet square. There was a passway leading from the living room into the kitchen which was just back of the dining room. In the kitchen there was a small window in the rear on the southern side of the room and a door near the west side which opened out towards Engman avenue onto a rear porch. In the kitchen there was located a kitchen sink to the right of the door leading from the bathroom into the kitchen with a separate drain-board on the side next to the door. In the northeast corner of the kitchen was a water heater, and near the center of the kitchen was a kitchen stove. In the southeast corner of the kitchen there was a trapdoor extending north and south, which was about 5 feet by a little more than 2 feet. The trapdoor opened by lifting it up and resting it against the wall of the kitchen. On each side of the Hill residence was a house of similar construction to that of the Hill building.

After Mrs. Hill was taken to the hospital, she lived only a short time. There were three serious wounds on her head, one apparently having been made by the blade of the hatchet, which cut into the left side of her head to the brain. The two others were on the back of the skull apparently having been made by the poll of the hatchet crushing the skull. Lewis Hill had two wounds about his head and one across his nose.

Lewis Hill was indicted, charged with the murder of his wife. The first trial resulted in a hung jury, the second trial in a conviction fixing his punishment at death, but a new trial was granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, and a third trial again resulted in a hung jury. A special venire was summoned from Jefferson county for his fourth trial. During the progress of that trial, because of some improper statement in the presence of the jury by a witness, the trial court, on the motion of appellant, discharged the jury. A special venire was summoned from Mason county for the fifth trial, which resulted in his conviction with the imposition of a life sentence by the jury. It is from the judgment of the last trial that this appeal is prosecuted.

The record is voluminous, and the evidence against appellant is circumstantial, and one of the grounds urged for reversal is that the verdict is flagrantly against the weight of the evidence. It is necessary to state concisely the major facts.

Appellant and his wife were about the same age, under 40 at the time of the tragedy. He was born and reared in Jessamine county near the town of Nicholasville, where he married. For some years prior to 1926 he was a guard at the State Reformatory at Frankfort. There he met a negro by the name of Percy Lewis. Lewis was a prisoner, having been convicted at different times of forgery, horse stealing, obtaining money under false pretenses, and escaping from prison. In February, 1926, Hill met Lewis on the streets of Lexington and had some talk with him. He learned, at the time that Lewis was preaching and also working in a tailor shop and cleaning and pressing establishment. Three or four days before the murder Hill was seen at different places in Lexington inquiring for Lewis. Finally he left a card at the home of the father of Lewis with the request that the information be conveyed to him that Hill had a suit of clothes he wanted cleaned and pressed. As Hill was leaving the home of Lewis' father, he met Lewis and made known his desires to him. This was on the 18th of March. He instructed Lewis to come to his place on Rand avenue the next day. Lewis was there the next morning and Hill obtained for him the suit of clothes and explained what he desired to have done to it. Mrs. Hill was present at the time. Hill then stated that there was something wrong with his water heater in the kitchen, and he desired Lewis to assist him in taking it apart so that he could have it repaired. They went into the kitchen, and Lewis assisted Hill in removing a nut from a bolt so that the heater could be taken apart. There were two hatchets, one of which was held on the nut while the other was used to strike the one held against the nut. The nut was removed which Hill said was sufficient to enable him to get the part that he wanted so it could be repaired.

During this visit to the Hill home, Lewis suggested that he was selling clothing, and asked Hill to purchase a suit. This Hill agreed to do, and Lewis went to his place of business, obtained his samples, and returned to the Hill home. Upon his return, Hill selected the material for a suit and was measured by Lewis. This was on Friday. On Saturday Lewis returned the suit which he had carried away, but Hill did not have the money to pay the bill for the work which had been done, so he requested Lewis to return to his home later in the day. Lewis returned about 7 o'clock in the evening, but there was no response to his ringing of the doorbell. He returned later in the evening, and finally had a talk with Hill, when he was informed by Hill that he had not been able to see his boss, and for that reason did not have the money to pay the bill. Hill instructed him to return about 11:30 Monday morning, at which time he promised that he would have the money for him. Monday was the day of the tragedy.

There is no material difference in the evidence of Hill and Lewis as to the occurrences on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. The disagreement in their evidence is about what occurred on Monday. Lewis testified that he went to the Hill home about 11:45 Monday morning and rang the doorbell, but there was no response. He left and returned a little later and again rang the doorbell. His second trip was after the tragedy had been discovered, and Hill and his wife had been removed to the hospital. That Lewis returned the second time is amply established by police officers who were nearby and by others. He showed the bill which he had against Hill to one of the police officers and explained that he was trying to collect the bill. According to his testimony, he did not see Hill on Monday and was not in the Hill home.

On the other hand, Hill testified that, when Lewis came to his home on Monday, he was admitted, and that he requested Lewis to assist him further wtih the water heater. They went into the kitchen, according to Hill's testimony, and again undertook to take the heater apart. While they were working on it, Hill testified that he had $5 which he had borrowed on Saturday night, and that he offered to pay Lewis the bill for pressing, but Lewis did not have the change. At the time he told Lewis that he could not take the suit which he had ordered because he did not have the money to make the $5 down payment. Lewis then said to him, according to Hill's testimony, in effect, that it was the way of white folks to try to keep the colored man down, and immediately Lewis struck him with a hatchet, rendering him unconscious, and he did not know anything else that took place until he regained consciousness later in the day at the hospital.

Neighbors who lived nearby did not...