Wells v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 15 December 1944 |
| Citation | 299 Ky. 51 |
| Parties | Wells v. Commonwealth. Same v. Dunn, Jailer. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
1. Criminal Law. — Order overruling motion for bail is not appealable.
2. Bail; Habeas Corpus. — The judge, on hearing of motion for bail in case involving capital offense and in habeas corpus action, is vested with sound discretion in determining whether evidence developed a case where proof is evident or presumption great. Constitution, sec. 16.
3. Habeas Corpus. — Where writ of habeas corpus is sought on ground that petitioner was entitled to bail notwithstanding he was charged with a capital offense, appellate court will approve judgment denying writ unless judge who denied it acted arbitrarily, but, if evidence discloses that trial judge did not abuse discretion lodged in him, judgment denying writ will not be disturbed. Constitution, sec. 16.
4. Habeas Corpus. — Where defendant had been indicted for murder, denial of bail was not an abuse of discretion under record, and could not be disturbed in habeas corpus proceeding. Constitution, sec. 16.
Appeal from Madison Circuit Court.
E. Selby Wiggins and O.P. Jackson for appellant.
Eldon S. Dummit, Attorney General, and John S. Noland, Commonwealth Attorney, and Hugh Porter, County Attorney, for appellee.
Before W.J. Baxter, Judge.
Affirming.
Appellant, Cecil Wells, was indicted by the Madison County grand jury wherein he was accused of having murdered Oscar Beasley. He entered motion for bail, and the court heard evidence of the Commonwealth, as well as that of appellant, upon the merits of the case, after which the motion was overruled. That motion was made on October 27, 1944, and on November 28, following that order, appellant instituted this habeas corpus action against the appellee, as jailer of Madison County. In his petition he alleged that under the provisions of section 16 of our Constitution he was entitled to bail, notwithstanding he was charged with a capital offense. That section is a part of our Bill of Rights, and says, inter alia: "All prisoners shall be bailable by sufficient securities, unless for capital offenses when the proof is evident or the presumption great * * *."
The appellee (jailer) defended on the ground that appellant's custody and confinement in the jail was under proper orders directed to him by the judge of the Madison circuit court. The court again heard evidence from both sides upon the merits of the case which developed substantially the same facts as was done on the hearing of the motion for bail, after which he denied the writ and dismissed the action, from which appellant prosecutes this appeal. He also attempts to appeal from the order of the court overruling his motion for bail rendered prior to the filing of the habeas corpus action, but, since there is no provided appeal from such an order, the appeal from it is dismissed. However, such...
To continue reading
Request your trial