Moss v. Com.

Decision Date24 May 1910
CitationMoss v. Com., 138 Ky. 404, 128 S.W. 296 (Ky. Ct. App. 1910)
PartiesMOSS v. COMMONWEALTH.
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Graves County.

"To be officially reported."

Pete Moss was convicted of carnally knowing a female under the age of 16 years, and he appeals. Reversed.

Webb &amp Weaks, for appellant.

Jas Breathitt, Atty. Gen., and Tom B. McGregor, Asst. Atty. Gen for the Commonwealth.

CARROLL J.

Under an indictment charging him with carnally knowing a female under the age of 16 years the appellant, Moss, was convicted. He asks a reversal of the judgment for alleged errors committed by the court in failing to grant a continuance, in admitting incompetent evidence, and in misinstructing the jury.

The indictment was returned in March, 1909. Upon this indictment a bench warrant was issued and executed upon the accused, who gave bond for his appearance to answer the charge. At the July and November, 1909, terms of the court the case was continued, and at the March, 1910, term an order was made setting the case down for hearing on March 16th. When the case was called for trial on the 16th, the defendant, who was out on bail, failed to answer, and a bench warrant was issued, under which he was arrested and placed in jail on the 25th of March. It is shown by the orders of court that on March 25th the case was by agreement set for trial on April 8th. When the case was called for trial on April 8th, the defendant filed an affidavit for a continuance, on account of the absence of George Milligan, George Jackson, Frank Miller and Cora Miller. The affidavit stated that the appellant could prove by the absent witnesses that Audrey Ray, the prosecuting witness, was at least 21 years old, and was over 16 years at the time Moss was accused of having carnal knowledge of her body, and, further, that she appeared as large and looked as much like a woman in 1906 as she did in 1910. He further stated in the affidavit that he was arrested on March 25, 1910, and placed in jail, and had no opportunity to prepare his case, and was unable to procure counsel until March 28, 1910; that on the 28th of March, 1910, he took out a subp na for the absent witnesses, and placed it in the hands of the sheriff of Graves county, who failed to execute it because Milligan was a resident of the state of Tennessee, Frank Miller and Cora Miller residents of Marshall county, Ky. and George Jackson confined to his home with sickness. He further averred that if a continuance was granted he could secure the presence of Milligan to testify on the next trial of the case, and also the attendance of Jackson and the Millers; that he did not know that the Millers did not live in Graves county until April 8, 1910. Upon the commonwealth's objection, a continuance was refused, and the affidavit was not read as the evidence of the absent witnesses on the trial.

It is earnestly insisted that, as the chief defense...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
3 cases
  • Abbott v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • May 20, 1930
    ...for any error unless it affirmatively appears that the substantial rights of the defendant were prejudiced thereby. Moss v. Com., 138 Ky. 404, 128 S.W. 296; Smith v. Com., 201 Ky. 546, 257 S.W. 720; v. Com., 200 Ky. 534, 255 S.W. 142; Overstreet v. Com., 147 Ky. 471, 144 S.W. 751; Wireman v......
  • Robertson v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • June 22, 1937
    ...Ky. 318, 10 S.W.2d 1099; Gregory v. Commonwealth, 187 Ky. 188, 218 S.W. 999; Commonwealth v. Tanner, 5 Bush, 316. In Moss v. Commonwealth, 138 Ky. 404, 128 S.W. 296, 297, the defendant was convicted of a crime defined by the then in force as "unlawfully carnally knowing a female under the a......
  • Deskins v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • March 22, 1929
    ...Keifner v. Commonwealth, 225 Ky. 163, 7 S.W.2d 1066; Kratzer v. Com. (Ky.) 15 S.W.2d 473, decided March 22, 1929. In Moss v. Commonwealth, 138 Ky. 404, 128 S.W. 296, it said: "In the instructions given, the word 'unlawfully' is not used, but the omission of this word in this case was wholly......