Jones v. Com.

• Decision Date: 12 June 1900
• Parties: JONES v. COMMONWEALTH. [1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

57 S.W. 472

JONES v. COMMONWEALTH. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 12, 1900

Appeal from circuit court, Woodford county.

"Not to be officially reported."

William Jones was convicted of the offense of robbery, and he appeals. Reversed.

D. T Edwards, for appellant.

Robt. J. Breckinridge, for the Commonwealth.

GUFFY J.

The indictment in this prosecution charges that the appellant did unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously take, steal, and carry away from the person of Thomas Taylor, and against his will by force and threats, United States currency, money and bank notes, amounting to seven dollars. To this indictment appellant pleaded not guilty. The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of robbery, and fixed his punishment at a term of four years in the penitentiary; and afterwards, by judgment of the court, it was so adjudged. The grounds for new trial are: First, the court misinstructed the jury; second, the court refused properly to instruct the jury; third, the verdict is against the law and evidence; fourth, the court erred in overruling defendant's motion in arrest of judgment; fifth, the verdict is not sustained by law or any of the evidence; sixth, the verdict was the result of prejudice upon the part of the jury against the defendant. Motion for a new trial having been overruled, the defendant has appealed, and asks a reversal.

One of the instructions asked by the defendant was to the effect that the court should instruct the jury that they should not find the defendant guilty of robbery. We deem it unnecessary to discuss or decide all the questions raised by the grounds for new trial, and insisted on by appellant. No demurrer was filed to the indictment. Hence we are not called upon to pass upon the sufficiency thereof. It is, however, manifest that the defendant was entitled to the instruction hereinbefore mentioned. There was absolutely no evidence conducing to show that the defendant took the money either by force or threats or by putting the complaining witness in fear. It results, therefore, that the defendant could not be legally convicted or found guilty of the charge of robbery. In fact, the evidence of the commonwealth clearly shows that no force, threats, or putting in fear were resorted to by the defendant in obtaining the money mentioned in the indictment. For the reasons indicated, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and the cause remanded,...