Whitaker v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 29 October 1891
• Citation: 17 S.W. 358
• Parties: Whitaker v. Commonwealth.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

17 S.W. 358

Whitaker v. Commonwealth.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 29, 1891

Appeal from criminal court, Daviess county.

"Not to be officially reported."

L. P Whitaker was indicted for murder, and on conviction of manslaughter appeals. Affirmed.

Holt C.J.

The appellant, L. P. Whitaker, killed T. A. Smith, by stabbing him during a drunken brawl, in which a good many parties were engaged. The appellant had spent the most of the day in a little town, acting in a drunken, disorderly, and braggart manner, by frequently showing his pocket-knife, thrusting a pistol he had obtained against people, making threats that he intended to kill some one, and by his general bad conduct supporting the testimony of the witnesses in this case, who say his general moral character is not good. The killing was a natural result of such a day's conduct. The appellant was indicted for murder, convicted of manslaughter, and his punishment fixed at four years in the penitentiary.

It is contended that the killing was done in self-defense, and that an acquittal would have resulted but for the alleged improper admission by the court of evidence proving the threats made by the accused during the day, and his conduct with his knife and pistol. The testimony is conflicting as to what occurred at the immediate time of the killing. There is, however evidence strongly tending to show that the accused held the deceased by the coat, and repeatedly stabbed him when he was unarmed, his hands up, and trying to back away from his assailant. The verdict is, in our opinion, sustained by the testimony, and the sentence a light one in view of all the circumstances. If, however, the evidence as to whether the deed was done in self-defense preponderated in favor of the accused, yet, where there is any testimony to support a verdict against him, it must upon appeal be sustained in the absence of legal error. It is urged this occurred- First, by the admission of evidence as to the previous threats and conduct of the accused upon that day second, by allowing testimony as to his general bad moral character, it having been introduced after he had voluntarily testified as a witness for himself; and third, by refusing the instructions to the jury asked by him. The threats were general; no intended victim was named; but the accused, in profane language, declared his purpose to kill a man upon that day. In making these threats he...