Hinkle v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 26 February 1902 |
| Citation | 66 S.W. 816 |
| Parties | HINKLE v. COMMONWEALTH. [1] |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court, Knox county.
"Not to be officially reported."
George Hinkle was convicted of the offense of forcibly effecting his escape from an officer, and he appeals. Affirmed.
B. B Golden, for appellant.
Robt. J. Breckinridge, for the Commonwealth.
The defendant in this case was indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment in the county jail upon an indictment charging him with forcibly effecting his escape from an officer at a time when he was lawfully arrested, etc., and, his motion for a new trial having been overruled, he prosecutes this appeal.
The indictment reads as follows: "The grand jury of Knox county, in the name and by the authority of the commonwealth of Kentucky, accuses George Hinkle of the offense of forcibly effecting his escape from an officer at a time when he was lawfully arrested and in custody upon a charge for a violation of the criminal and penal laws, committed in manner and form as follows, to wit: The said Hinkle did, on the 5th day of December, 1900, in the county, circuit, and state aforesaid, and before the finding of the indictment herein unlawfully and forcibly effect his escape and escaped from A M. Hemphill, who was at the time a deputy sheriff of Knox county, Kentucky, and acting as such, who had the said Hinkle lawfully under arrest and in his custody as deputy sheriff aforesaid, upon a charge of assault and battery upon the person of Harve Steele; against the peace and dignity of the commonwealth of Kentucky." The grounds relied upon for a new trial are, in substance: (1) That the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the indictment; (2) because the court erred in permitting incompetent evidence prejudicial to the defendant to go to the jury; (3) because the court erred in refusing competent evidence favorable to defendant, and offered by him; (4) because the court misinstructed the jury and refused to properly instruct the same; (5) because the verdict is against the law and evidence; (6) because of the misconduct of the attorney for the commonwealth in the argument of the case; (7) because the court erred in overruling defendant's motion, at the close of the plaintiff's evidence, to instruct the jury to find him not guilty, and in overruling defendant's motion to instruct the jury to find him not guilty at the close of all the evidence. This indictment was found under section 1338, Ky. St., which section reads as follows: "If a prisoner fined, on a sentence of imprisonment or to be whipped or under a capias escapes jail, or if a person lawfully arrested upon a charge for a violation of the criminal and penal laws forcibly or by bribery effects his escape from an officer, or guard, he shall be confined in jail not less...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Bailey
...E. g., Dempsey v. United States, 283 F.2d 934 (5th Cir. 1960); Grubb v. State, 533 P.2d 988 (Okl.Crim.App.1975); Hinkle v. Commonwealth, 23 Ky.Law Rep. 1988, 66 S.W. 816 (1902).50 E. g., Dempsey v. United States, 283 F.2d 934 (5th Cir. 1960); People v. Hocquard, 64 Mich.App. 331, 236 N.W.2d......
-
People v. Lovercamp, Cr. 6280
...place, full of vermin and uncleanliness,' (State v. Davis, 14 Nev. 439, 33 Am.Rep. 563); fear of being shot (Hinkle v. Commonwealth (Ky.), 23 Ky.L.Rpt. 1988, 66 S.W. 816); unmerited punishment at the hands of the custodian (Johnson v. State, 122 Ga. 172, 50 S.E. 65); or escape from solitary......
-
Branson v. State
...held that intolerable living conditions in prison afforded no justification for escape. State v. Davis, 14 Neb. 439; Hinkle v. Commonwealth, 23 Ky.L.Rpt. 1988, 66 S.W. 816; Johnson v. State, 122 Ga. 172, 50 S.E. 65; State v. Cahill, 196 Iowa 486, 194 N.W. 191; State v. Palmer, 45 Del. 308, ......
-
State v. Alberigo
...State, 122 Ga. 172, 50 S.E. 65 (1905), escape from Georgia chain gang to avoid unmerited punishment by guards; Hinkle v. Commonwealth, 23 Ky.Law Rep. 1988, 66 S.W. 816 (1902), fear on the part of prisoner in custody of sheriff of being shot by a third person; State v. Davis, 14 Nev. 439, 33......