Vaughn v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 01 July 1924
• Citation: 204 Ky. 229,263 S.W. 752
• Parties: VAUGHN v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

263 S.W. 752

204 Ky. 229

VAUGHN v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

July 1, 1924

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hardin County.

F. M Vaughn was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Reversed.

Sampson C.J., dissenting.

Haynes Carter, of Elizabethtown, C. B. Larimore, of Munfordsville and C. C. Bagby, of Danville, for appellant.

Thos B. McGregor, Atty. Gen., and Chas. W. Logan, Asst. Atty Gen., for the Commonwealth.

O'NEAL, J.

Appellant, Finis M. Vaughn, shot and killed Robert L. Rider, in the Christian Church at Glendale, on Wednesday evening, September 20, 1922. He was indicted upon the charge of willful murder, and was tried and convicted in the Hardin circuit court; his punishment being fixed at life imprisonment. His motion for a new trial having been overruled, he prosecutes this appeal, seeking a reversal on the following grounds: (1) Failure of the court to instruct on manslaughter; (2) misconduct of attorneys for the commonwealth; (3) rejection of competent evidence offered by the defendant; (4) refusal to grant a change of venue; (5) newly discovered evidence.

Since we have concluded the judgment must be reversed and the case retried, we will only summarize so much of the evidence as is necessary to a proper understanding of the questions raised upon this appeal.

Appellant, together with his wife, 15 year old son, and two younger daughters, lived on a farm in Hardin county, half a mile southwest of Glendale--in which village Robert L. Rider resided and conducted a mercantile establishment. During the fall of 1921, for the reasons hereinafter stated, appellant became convinced, or, for mercenary reasons as claimed by the commonwealth, pretended to have become convinced, that Rider had debauched his wife and broken up his home, and he accordingly instituted an action for divorce against his wife, and filed a suit for damages against Rider, both of which were based upon charges of their misconduct. He was defeated in the divorce action, but the damage suit against Rider was still pending at the time of the tragedy upon which this prosecution is based.

The material facts of the homicide are substantially undisputed. As stated before, it occurred in the church while services were in progress. Rider was seated to the left of the center aisle facing the minister, and with his back toward the rear door. Some 60 or 70 men, women, and children were in attendance, and among them were appellant's wife and two little daughters, who were seated about three rows in front of deceased. Shortly after the meeting began, appellant entered through the rear door and sat down back of and to the right of Rider. After looking over the audience for 5 or 10 minutes, he went out and was gone for half an hour or more. Upon his return he again entered the rear door, pulled a chair out into the open space at the rear of the church and to the right of the aisle, and sat down. He was thus back of and to the right of Rider. For some 10 minutes he sat nervously in his chair, looking over the audience and particularly in the direction of the deceased. The closing hymn had been sung, and a convert had gone forward to make his confession; it was the most solemn moment of the services, and there was not a sound in the church. Suddenly appellant sprang up from his chair, advanced one or two steps towards Rider, mumbling indistinctly, according to the majority of the witnesses, but saying "I've got you, you ______," according to at least two witnesses, and before Rider could do more than half rise from his seat, he shot the latter five or six times, killing him almost instantly.

Appellant's defense was insanity of the type characterized by the physicians who testified for him as acute mania. In support of that defense his evidence tended to prove the following state of facts:

He had become suspicious of his wife's conduct in the summer of 1921, and his suspicions were greatly increased, and centered on Rider when he saw the latter squeezing his (appellant's) wife's hand in the same church in which later the tragedy occurred. Shortly after having observed this familiarity, he was advised by several of his colored neighbors that Rider was in the habit of visiting his wife during his absence and particularly on Sunday mornings. He also learned that Rider had given his wife various presents, among them a pair of shoes. On Thanksgiving morning his 15 year old son asked at the breakfast table, in the presence of himself and his wife, "what the devil Rider was doing" slipping around the back of their house the night before, as he had seen him doing. This augmented his suspicions, and he determined to ascertain the truth of the reports he had heard. He pretended to his wife that it was necessary for him to be absent from home for a few days on business, and accordingly he left on Thanksgiving afternoon. He returned secretly about 9:30 the same evening, hid under a rosebush in his yard, and watched his house for some time, without results. He again left and did not return until about 2 a. m. the following Sunday morning, at which time he climbed up over the kitchen and entered a second story window and secreted himself under the bed in which his son was sleeping. There he remained in hiding until late Sunday morning and until after his children had gone. He then came out from his hiding place and went to the window, where he could watch his wife doing her daily chores in the yard. He saw her enter one of the outhouses at the rear of the place, but from his position could not see any one who might enter the building by the rear door. His wife remained in the outhouse for about twenty minutes, and he became convinced that she was with Rider. He armed himself with a pistol and started to go out where he believed the guilty couple to be. He met his wife returning to the house, and his threatening appearance so startled her that she became very much excited and wanted to know what it meant. He told her his suspicions, and she broke down and confessed her guilt, and begged him to do nothing violent for the sake of the children. He was terribly upset, unable to sleep or eat, and did not know what to do.

He sought out Rider a few days after his wife's confession and demanded an explanation. The latter advanced upon him with his hands in his pockets and in a threatening manner, whereupon appellant pointed his pistol at him and threatened to kill him if he undertook to do anything. Deceased agreed to go across the street to the bank where they could talk it over, and went to get his hat, but never returned; and the record does not show that appellant ever saw him again from that day in November until he shot him to death the following September.

Immediately after his wife's confession, appellant ceased to live at home, although occasionally going there to see his children and to take care of his stock and other property.

He slept in the house upon several occasions, but always with his son. After his wife had confessed, he made other investigations among his neighbors, and at the trial of his divorce suit proved by numerous witnesses who testified in his presence that his wife had confessed her guilt to them. He states that he did not live anywhere particularly after he left home, but wandered from place to place until the following July, when he went to Lexington. He went there to be near his boy, who had been sent to Greendale some time in April, 1922. In Lexington he worked for the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad, and while in its employ, and because of the labor troubles then existing, he purchased the pistol with which he afterwards killed Rider.

During all the time he was in Lexington he was sick, restless, and worried so that he could neither sleep nor eat. He was confined to the hospital in Lexington, suffering from high fever and headache; but on Saturday, September 16th, he was permitted to leave, upon his promise not to attempt any work, and upon his assurance that he wanted to go home to see his family. He visited his children at Glendale on Sunday, and then visited other relatives in the neighborhood of Elizabethtown until the following Wednesday. While in Elizabethtown on Wednesday he purchased 12 cartridges, which he states he had been in the habit of doing, and that he had purchased 1,000 theretofore. That same night he returned to Glendale, arriving there about 7:30, his sole purpose being to see his family. He disclosed his purpose to one Will Grimes, and the latter informed him that there was a meeting at the Glendale Christian Church, and he was certain to find his family there. He therefore went to the church for that purpose. Upon arriving at the church he sat down and looked around for his family, and, as he had been away for some time, he glanced around to see who else that he knew was there. He saw Rider, but had no desire and no intention of harming him, and had no idea of seeing him when he went there. He did not see his family, although they were present, and after looking around for a few minutes, and believing his family to be at home, he left and walked to his home some half mile distant, and at that time had no idea of returning to the church. There he saw a light burning in the house, but found the doors locked. He took a drink or two out of a pint bottle of whisky which he had brought with him from Lexington the preceding Saturday; and, believing that his family must be at the church and that he had overlooked them on his first visit, he returned to the church. At that time he entertained no feeling of hatred toward Rider and did not intend to harm him in any way. He walked into the church and took a seat in the rear. He was then asked what he saw when he sat down, and he replied:

"Well, when I walked in and sat

...