Sprague v. Commonwealth

• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: BURNAM, J.
• Citation: Sprague v. Commonwealth, 58 S.W. 430 (Ky. Ct. App. 1900)
• Decision Date: 20 September 1900
• Parties: SPRAGUE v. COMMONWEALTH. [1]

58 S.W. 430

SPRAGUE v. COMMONWEALTH. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

September 20, 1900

Appeal from circuit court, Marshall county.

"Not to be officially reported."

J. A Sprague was convicted of the offense of maliciously cutting another with a knife with intent to kill, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Bishop & Hendrick, for appellant.

R. J Breckinridge, for the Commonwealth.

BURNAM J.

Appellant was indicted for the statutory crime of maliciously cutting another with a knife with intent to kill. We are asked to reverse the judgment rendered against him, pursuant to the verdict of the jury, for $500 on two grounds 1. Because the trial court erred to the prejudice of appellant in failing to instruct the jury that the defendant could not be convicted under the indictment of any offense except a breach of peace or assault and battery, for the reason that the indictment did not charge that the knife used by the defendant was a deadly weapon. The words, "or other deadly weapons," embraced in the statute under which this indictment was found, do not refer to guns pistols, knives, or swords, or other deadly weapons mentioned therein, but were intended to embrace any deadly weapon with which a person might be wounded by cutting or stabbing, not therein specifically referred to. It was not essential to allege in the indictment that a knife was a deadly weapon. See Wilson v. Com., 3 Bush, 105; Com. v. Branham, 8 Bush, 387; Philpot v. Com., 86 Ky. 595, 6 S.W. 455.

2. It is insisted that the fourth instruction given to the jury was prejudicial to the appellant, because it made the right of appellant to strike in self-defense dependent not only upon the fact that he had reasonable grounds to believe, and did in good faith believe,...