Presley v. Commonwealth
Decision Date | 10 June 1946 |
Citation | 38 S.E.2d 476,185 Va. 261 |
Parties | PRESLEY. v. COMMONWEALTH. |
Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Buchanan County; Alfred A. Skeen, Judge.
Barney Presley was convicted of second-degree murder, and he brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
Before CAMPBELL, C. J., and HOLT, HUDGINS, GREGORY, BROWNING, EGGLESTON, and SPRATLEY, J J.
F. H. Combs, of Grundy, for plaintiff in error.
Abram P. Staples, Atty. Gen., and W. Carrington Thompson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.
The defendant, Barney Presley, stands charged with murder, and was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to ten years confinement in the penitentiary. He has applied to this Court for and has been granted a writ of error.
On Sunday, August 5, 1945, he shot and killed Walter Crouse on a public road in Buchanan County. Both of these men are married and both of them have children and each lived in a mountain section of that county. Crouse worked for a lumber company across the border in Kentucky. Presley was a carpenter of sorts and owned and operated for hire a small or pick-up truck, taking freight as he found it.
In February 1944, Crouse employed Presley to build a house for him, and this contractor finished that work in September following. Since Crouse did not live at home, the arrangement was that Mrs. Crouse would do the buying and pay for it. For these reasons she usually rode with the defendant. Something like eighteen or twenty trips were made. On most of them they were accompanied by others, sometimes members of her family, sometimes members of his. Once or twice she rode alone with him in the truck's cab. On one occasion they met by chance in the hospital. On another they took dinner together in a hotel with a friend. Once they had pictures taken by the same photographer but not together. Unquestionably they were on friendly terms, but there is not a line of evidence that would indicate improper relations. There was, however, neighborhood gossip, which came to Crouse's ears.
While this work was in progress Presley bought from Crouse's son, who was under age, an automobile. This transaction irritated Crouse who thought that Presley had over-reached his son in the bargain. He was irritated and so expressed himself, the net result of which was that this trade fell through. Crouse did not pay Presley in full for his work, though he had promised several times to do it. Presley, on his part, was on the lookout for Crouse in order to collect his debt. They met by chance in the public road and this is Presley's account of what then occurred:
"
Ira Hale, a deputy sheriff, was among the first to reach the body. This is what he saw: "Well, he was lying there and the gun sticking out here like that and they tied a string through the guard of the gun, I thought it looked like it had been stuck in his pocket, was the reason we did that, thought we might need finger prints, and we didn't want to hand it around."
Mr. Compton also saw the body. The barrel was in Crouse's pocket, but the handle and cylinder were outside. Crouse was shot three times, once in the neck, once near the left elbow and once on his left side.
John Kean had a country store. Oscar Kean came up to it and told him of the tragedy. About two weeks before that time, Crouse asked Kean if he would go on his bond, in the event that he got into trouble. This is Kean's account of what occurred:
"Yes, sir, he came there and said they had had some words, abusive language and he said, 'He called me off the truck last night and raised a row with me', and he said, 'I talked to him a right smart bad about my wife, ' and he expected to have to pay a fine, and he asked me if I would go his bond to keep him from having to go to jail, if they arrested him...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Street v. Street
... ... Bridgeman v. Commonwealth, 3 Va.App. 523, 528, 351 S.E.2d 598, 601 (1986). Further, the fact finder is not required to accept the testimony of an expert witness merely ... Vaughan, 214 Va. 307, 310, 199 S.E.2d 515, 517 (1973); Hodge, 213 Va. at 31, 189 S.E.2d at 353; Presley v. Commonwealth, 185 Va. 261, 266-67, 38 S.E.2d 476, 478 (1946); Worsham v. Commonwealth, 184 Va. 192, 194, 34 S.E.2d 234, 235 (1945); Hamilton v ... ...
- Presley v. Commonwealth
-
Blount v. Com.
...195 S.E.2d 693 ... 213 Va. 807 ... William BLOUNT ... COMMONWEALTH of Virginia ... Supreme Court of Virginia ... April 23, 1973 ... Paul M. Lipkin, Robert H. Anderson, Jr., Norfolk (Goldblatt, ... Commonwealth, 208 Va. 719, 722, 160 S.E.2d 566, 568 (1968), or 'grossly improbable', Presley v. Commonwealth, 185 Va. 261, 266, 38 S.E.2d 476, 478 (1946), the jury may disbelieve him. But the exception only means that uncontradicted ... ...
-
Davis v. Commonwealth
... ... 391, 4 S.E.2d 752.We have seen that the court told the jury that if they accepted Davis' statement of how the killing came to pass, he was entitled to do whatever seemed to be reasonably necessary to defend himself from death or serious bodily harm.We have recently had occasion, in Presley v. Commonwealth, 185 Va. 261, 38 S.E.2d 476, to state the law applicable in such cases and find it unnecessary to restate what is there stated in some detail. Such testimony, if not in dispute and not inherently improbable, must be accepted, which is but to say that the account which the ... ...