Spradlin v. Commonwealth

Decision Date14 October 1927
Citation221 Ky. 372,298 S.W. 952
PartiesSPRADLIN ET AL. v. COMMONWEALTH.
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lawrence County.

Garfield Spradlin and another were convicted of manslaughter, and they appeal. Affirmed.

M. S Burns, T. S. Thompson, and W. T. Cain, all of Louisa, for appellants.

Frank E. Daugherty, Atty. Gen., and C. F. See, Jr., and K. C Elswick, both of Louisa, for the Commonwealth.

REES J.

Garfield Meek, Jackie Boothe and appellants, Garfield Spradlin and Walter Osborn, were indicted in the Lawrence circuit court charged with the murder of Bert Preston. The appellants were tried together, and the jury returned a verdict finding them guilty of manslaughter and fixing the punishment of each at confinement in the state penitentiary for a period of five years. In the indictment each was charged with the killing of Preston and also with aiding, abetting, assisting, and encouraging the others in the commission of the crime.

The appellant Garfield Spradlin was a constable of Martin county and when the killing occurred he was attempting to serve warrants in Lawrence county that had been issued by the authorities of Johnson county. He had a bench warrant for the arrest of Henry Cook indicted for murder and a warrant for the arrest of Bert Preston who was charged with a misdemeanor. A reward had been offered for the arrest of Cook. On the night of May 14, 1925, accompanied by Garfield Meek, Jackie Boothe, and his coappellant, Walter Osborn, he went to the home of Lige Wallen in Lawrence county. About midnight a man was seen to enter Wallen's home and believing him to be Henry Cook, the appellant Spradlin directed Garfield Meek and Jackie Boothe to go to the rear of the Wallen house, and he and the appellant Osborn went to the front door. The man that had been seen to enter the Wallen house was the deceased, Bert Preston, who at once went to a room in the rear of the house and prepared to retire. Wallen opened the front door in answer to a knock, and the appellant Spradlin entered the front room with a pistol in his hand. Pointing to a door leading to a room in the rear, he asked Wallen who was there, and Wallen replied, "Bert Preston." About this time those in the front room heard a conversation between Preston and one of the men that had been stationed at the rear of the house, and after a few words had been spoken, the report of a pistol, which the evidence shows was fired by one of the men on the outside. The shooting at once became general, and after it had ceased it was discovered that Preston had been mortally wounded. On the following day Preston was removed from the home of Lige Wallen in Lawrence county to a hospital in Paintsville in Johnson county, where he died on May 17, 1925.

On May 15, 1925, warrants were issued by the county judge of Lawrence county charging Meek, Boothe, and the appellants, Spradlin and Osborn, with maliciously shooting and wounding Bert Preston with intent to kill. These warrants were delivered to Harry Adams, deputy sheriff of Johnson county, on May 16, 1925, and after the death of Preston the county judge of Johnson county issued warrants for Garfield Meek, Jackie Boothe; Garfield Spradlin, and Walter Osborn in which each was charged with murder. These warrants were also delivered to Harry Adams, and he arrested the appellants under the Johnson county warrants and not under the Lawrence county warrants which had theretofore been delivered to him. At the examining trial before the county judge of Johnson county, the appellants waived examination and each of them gave bond for his appearance in the Johnson circuit court. At the next term of the Johnson circuit court the grand jury failed to return an indictment against either of the appellants, and at the October term, 1925, of the Lawrence circuit court, the indictment was returned under which appellants were tried and convicted.

The appellants now insist that they were tried by a court having no jurisdiction of the offense by reason of section 24, Criminal Code, and that is the principal ground urged by them for a reversal.

Section 24 of the Criminal Code provides:

"If the jurisdiction of an offense be in two or more counties, the defendant shall be tried in the county in which he is first arrested, unless an indictment for the offense be pending in another county."

Section 1147, Kentucky Statutes, provides:

"If a mortal wound or other violence or injury be inflicted, or poison be administered, in one county or corporation, and death ensues in another, the offense may be prosecuted in either."

Under this section of the statutes jurisdiction of the offense exists in the county where the mortal wound was inflicted and also in the county where the death occurred, and, under section 24 of the Criminal Code, the defendant shall be tried in the county in which he is first arrested unless an indictment for the offense be pending in another county. In Spencer v. Commonwealth, 194 Ky. 699, 240 S.W. 750 Spencer was indicted and tried in Clark county for the murder of Vernon Bryant. The wound which caused Bryant's death was inflicted in Powell county, but Bryant died in Clark county. A warrant charging Spencer with the crime of murder was issued by the county judge of Clark...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Martin v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 4 Junio 1937
    ... ... and subjected himself to the jurisdiction of that court. The ... case cited by appellant Com. v. Apkins, 148 Ky. 207, ... 146 S.W. 431, 39 L.R.A.(N.S.) 822, Ann.Cas.1913E, 465, is not ... applicable here. More nearly applicable and conclusive of the ... contention are Spradlin v. Com., 221 Ky. 372, 298 ... S.W. 952; Clemons v. Stoll, 197 Ky. 208, 246 S.W ... 810. The unequivocal statement of the witness was to the ... effect that Benge died in Laurel county. No contrary proof ... was offered ...          3. This ... ground is that after trial had ... ...
  • Martin v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • 1 Octubre 1937
    ...(N.S.) 822, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 465, is not applicable here. More nearly applicable and conclusive of the contention are Spradlin v. Com., 221 Ky. 372, 298 S.W. 952; Clemons v. Stoll, 197 Ky. 208, 246 S.W. 810. The unequivocal statement of the witness was to the effect that Benge died in Laure......
  • McDaniel v. Sams
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 30 Abril 1935
    ...11 B. Mon. 214; Talbott v. Todd, 5 Dana 190." This was the controlling principle in Clemons v. Stoll; Spencer v. Commonwealth; Spradlin v. Commonwealth, supra; Carrington v. Commonwealth, 78 Ky. 83. It was recognized last in Commonwealth v. Wolfford. It is now an inflexible rule in this sta......
  • Epling v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 11 Marzo 1930
    ... ... commonwealth instead of that produced by the defendant. It is ... not within our province to revise the verdict of a jury ... respecting the credibility of witnesses, or to rejudge a ... finding of facts by that tribunal when deduced from ... conflicting evidence. Spradlin v. Com., 221 Ky. 372, ... 298 S.W. 952 ...          Especial ... insistence is made that prejudice resulted to appellant's ... cause from an improper question addressed by the ... commonwealth's attorney to an impeaching witness offered ... by appellant to prove that prosecutrix was ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT