Murphy v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 16 January 1891
• Citation: 92 Ky. 485,18 S.W. 163
• Parties: Murphy v. Commonwealth.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

18 S.W. 163

92 Ky. 485

Murphy v. Commonwealth.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 16, 1891

Appeal from circuit court, Magoffin county.

"To be officially reported."

Logan Murphy was convicted of murder, and appeals. Reversed.

Lewis J.

Appellant Logan Murphy, about 19 years old, has been convicted and sentenced to be hanged for murder of his father, Isaac Murphy, at whose house he, though married about six weeks previously, was at the time living. According to the evidence, of which there is no contrariety, about dark of the day of the homicide, appellant, accompanied by his brother-in-law, returned home, having a turkey that he had killed while away, and which he asked to be cooked. In the language of witnesses he and his father had "some words," and he then went out of the house and sat down where he stayed about a half hour, and then came to the door of the house, when his step-mother told him to come into the house and act like a man, to which he replied he was waiting for his father to ask him in; and upon the deceased responding he could do as he pleased, come in or stay out, appellant presented a pistol, and fired the shot, which caused death in a few moments. What were the words deceased and appellant used does not appear; nor does it clearly appear what was the subject or occasion of them but it may be inferred from the conduct of appellant in leaving the house he was offended at his father. There is no evidence whatever that the deceased made any demonstration or threat of violence to appellant. On the contrary, when shot he was sitting in a chair, his arm being at the back of it, and his head resting on his arm, and was not even looking towards appellant. As the record stands, the killing appears to have been done deliberately, without provocation, excuse, or even warning, and must be regarded an act comprising all the elements of murder, and punishable as such, unless appellant was at the time a lunatic; and the only ground relied on for reversal is assumed error of the lower court in refusing a continuance to enable appellant to obtain attendance of witnesses to establish that fact, and in sustaining objection to evidence offered on the trial for that purpose. It appears that the killing occurred about the 1st of September, 1891, and the indictment was found and the case called for trial at October term of the court, when motion was made for a continuance, based on an affidavit in which was made, in substance, the following statement: That from the day of his arrest until indicted appellant had been confined in the jail of another county, and unable to prepare for his defense; that he is unable to read or write, and entirely without funds to aid or property or money with which to employ counsel to defend him, the attorney who is doing so being a volunteer from another county, and a stranger in the county where the trial was being had; that, if an opportunity is afforded, he can prove his mother has for 15 years been confined in a lunatic asylum, and...