Sawyers v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 12 November 1896
• Parties: SAWYERS v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

38 S.W. 136

SAWYERS v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

November 12, 1896

Appeal from circuit court, Knox county.

"Not to be officially reported."

James R. Sawyers was convicted of manslaughter, and appeals. Affirmed.

J Smith Hays and S. B. Dishman, for appellant.

Tinsley & Faulkner and W. S. Taylor, for the Commonwealth.

HAZELRIGG J.

Appellant was convicted of the crime of manslaughter under an indictment in the Knox circuit court for the murder of Robert Burnsides, and sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for 21 years. The parties were young men, and appear to have been entirely friendly until a few moments before the fatal affray. They, with others, were seated about a stove in the storehouse of a relative of appellant, when Burnsides, after eating some crackers and a bit of cheese, called for water with which he rinsed his mouth, and spit it towards the stove, but nearer to the feet of appellant, some of it probably striking his feet or legs. Sharp words followed, and the act of spitting the water was repeated several times by Burnsides, accompanied with insulting language. The parties soon left their chairs and clinched, the appellant cutting and thrusting with a small pocketknife, and Burnsides striking with a beer glass, from which he had been drinking water. After separation it was found that Burnsides had been cut a number of times in the chest and abdomen, while appellant was bruised and cut about the head with the glass. The former died in a few days from his wounds.

Under the most favorable construction of the somewhat conflicting proof, the accused was guilty of manslaughter; and, if the testimony of one or more of the witnesses for the state be credited, to the effect that the accused rushed on the deceased, and cut him while the latter was doing nothing beyond using provoking language, the crime might well have been pronounced a murder. Upon this theory of the case, it was not improper to give an instruction on the subject of murder, and this disposes of the first error complained of by appellant, and the only one complained of as to the instructions.

The second complaint is that the crowd was permitted by the court to make demonstrations of approval by applause and laughter while the attorney for the state was addressing the jury. No decision of the court was made touching this matter, however and we learn it for the first time in affidavits filed on...