Jackson v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 11 November 1890 |
| Citation | 14 S.W. 677 |
| Parties | JACKSON v. COMMONWEALTH. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court, Laurel county.
"Not to be officially reported."
Ewell & Smith, W. R. Ramsey, and N. B. Hays, for appellant.
P. W Harden, for the Commonwealth.
The appellant, Hugh Jackson, was jointly indicted with Abe McKee for maliciously shooting and wounding Alexander Williams, the accusation being that Jackson did the shooting, and McKee being present, encouraged it. A severance of trial was granted. The defense was that the appellant did not do it. It occurred in the night. The direct testimony is conflicting. According to Williams' evidence, the appellant is guilty. According to his own, and that of McKee, he is not. Both sides are to some extent confirmed by other testimony. Under these circumstances the verdict cannot be disturbed, unless an error of law was committed upon the trial, which considering the entire case, was prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused. It is urged-- First, that this occurred in the rejection of certain testimony; and, second, in instructing the jury. They were told, in substance, in the first instruction that, if they believed from the evidence, to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt, the appellant maliciously shot and wounded Will. iams, they should convict him of felony; in the next one that, if they found from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did shoot and wound him, but in sudden heat and passion, and not in malice, then they should find him guilty of a misdemeanor. By the third instruction they were directed in case they found him guilty, but had a reasonable doubt whether of felony or misdemeanor, to convict him of the latter. In a fourth instruction he was given the benefit of the rule as to a reasonable doubt upon the whole case. The instructions embodied the whole law of the case. They were as favorable to the accused as he had a right to demand. We perceive no error in this respect. Moreover, no exception was taken to the first instruction, and under it the appellant was found guilty.
The witness Abe McKee stated that Williams, shortly before the time when he claimed to have been shot by the appellant, had a shooting scrape in the night with two men by the name of Bush, who lived near the place where the shooting in question occurred. This statement was excluded at the instance of the state, notwithstanding an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- City of Maysville v. Stanton
-
Curry v. Commonwealth
...his evidence, and the fact that he was surprised appears for the first time in his motion for a new trial. In the case of Jackson v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 14 S.W. 677, it held that the surprise of the defendant at the testimony of the prosecuting witness was not ground for a new trial. Appella......