Newsome v. Commonwealth
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | GRIGSBY, J. |
| Citation | Newsome v. Commonwealth, 236 Ky. 344, 33 S.W.2d 36 (Ky. Ct. App. 1930) |
| Decision Date | 05 December 1930 |
| Parties | NEWSOME v. COMMONWEALTH. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County.
Tolby Newsome was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
E. J Picklesimer, of Pikeville, for appellant.
J. W Cammack, Atty. Gen., and Howard Smith Gentry, of Frankfort for the Commonwealth.
The appellant, Tolby Newsome, Noah Newsome, and Frank Newsome were jointly indicted by the grand jury in Pike county for the crime of willful murder. The appellant Tolby Newsome alone being on trial before a petit jury in the Pike circuit court was found guilty of manslaughter and his punishment fixed at two years in the state penitentiary. In order to reverse a judgment entered in accordance with the verdict of the jury appellant prosecutes this appeal. The first error alleged by appellant is that a demurrer to the indictment should have been sustained. The indictment is as follows:
It is argued by appellant that the indictment is defective because it charges both appellant Tolby Newsome and Frank Newsome with the actual shooting and killing of Kenis Mitchell, and therefore alleges a physical impossibility. We cannot agree with this contention. In our opinion the indictment clearly charges the appellant with the crime of murder, and while it is true that Frank Newsome is also charged with the shooting and wounding, the indictment further states "that the exact manner whereof is unknown to the grand jury," and we fail to see wherein this indictment is defective. We are of the opinion that the indictment charged but one offense, is in no way ambiguous, and fully meets the requirements of the Criminal Code of Practice, §§ 118-137. Thompson v. Commonwealth, 1 Metc. (58 Ky.) 13; Hudson v. Commonwealth, 204 Ky. 480, 264 S.W. 1067.
It is next contended by appellant that the verdict is not supported by the evidence. The testimony of the witnesses show that appellant, with his two brothers, Noah Newsome and Frank Newsome, were on their way from Letcher county, where appellant resided, to the home of their mother, who resided in Pike county. They had ridden a part of the way, but at the time of the homicide they were walking. In passing through a field along Robinson creek they overtook the deceased, Kenis Mitchell. The appellant and his two brothers, Noah Newsome and Frank Newsome, testified that as they approached deceased he had his back to them and they saw his arm move as though he had something in his hand. When they arrived within a few feet, deceased turned upon them. The appellant himself gives this version of the shooting:
Noah Newsome, a brother of appellant, testified that when they approached deceased that deceased "wheeled back and as he wheeled back he throwed his hands under his overalls and said something or...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart 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
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
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
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
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
Start Your Free Trial
-
Swanigan v. Commonwealth
... ... 780, ... and, if there is any evidence affording a reasonable ground ... upon which it can be sustained, it cannot be said to be ... palpably against the evidence. Abdon v ... Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 21, 34 S.W.2d 742; Shepherd v ... Commonwealth, 236 Ky. 290, 33 S.W.2d 4; Newsome v ... Commonwealth, 236 Ky. 344, 33 S.W.2d 36; Kirk v ... Commonwealth, 192 Ky. 460, 233 S.W. 1060. We are of the ... opinion that the verdict is amply supported by the evidence ... Therefore we find no merit in this contention ... It is ... next contended that the court ... ...
-
Newsome v. Commonwealth
...on the fact that Tolby Newsome had admitted firing the shot that killed Kenis Mitchell. The indictment is set out in the case of Newsome v. Commonwealth, supra, and it unnecessary to insert it in this opinion, but suffice to say it charges Frank Newsome and Tolby Newsome with the murder of ......
-
Tussey v. Commonwealth
... ... is ample evidence to sustain a conviction. A verdict is not ... flagrantly against the evidence if there is any competent ... evidence to sustain the judgment of conviction. Abdon v ... Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 21, 34 S.W.2d 742; Shepherd v ... Commonwealth, 236 Ky. 290, 33 S.W.2d 4; Newsome v ... Commonwealth, 236 Ky. 344, 33 S.W.2d 36; Wilson v ... Commonwealth, 140 Ky. 36, 130 S.W. 793; Blanton v ... Commonwealth, 147 Ky. 812, 146 S.W. 10; Abram v ... Mallicoat, 147 Ky. 817, 145 S.W. 764; Gilbert v ... Commonwealth, 228 Ky. 19, 14 S.W.2d 194 ... It is ... ...
-
Fitzgerald v. Commonwealth
...evidence is introduced. Howard v. Com., 227 Ky. 142, 12 S.W. (2d) 324; Logan v. Com., 236 Ky. 329, 33 S.W. (2d) 25; Newsome v. Com., 236 Ky. 344, 33 S.W. (2d) 36; Truax v. Com., 149 Ky. 699, 149 S.W. We are of the opinion that the fact that the defendant offered himself as a witness waived ......