Williams v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 30 January 1892 |
| Citation | 18 S.W. 364 |
| Parties | Williams v. Commonwealth. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court, Hardin county.
"Not to be officially reported."
Indictment against Jacob Williams for homicide. From a conviction defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The appellant, Jacob Williams, was indicted for the killing of David Bethel, the charge being murder, and was convicted of manslaughter; his punishment being fixed at two years, or the lowest term. His defense was that he acted in self-defense. He asks a reversal, mainly, upon three grounds First, that the verdict is against the evidence second, because of newly-discovered evidence third, failure to grant him a continuance.
The evidence shows that, some time prior to the killing, the parties had a difference over a business matter. Afterwards the deceased frequently threatened to kill the appellant, and looked for him openly and often, avowing such purpose. When the killing took place the deceased began the conversation,-used offensive epithets and language to the appellant; and doubtless the jury fixed the lowest punishment allowed by law because of this conduct of the deceased. It was their province, however, to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused; and there is not such an absence of evidence to support the verdict as authorizes the interference of this court. While in the trial court the guilt of one accused of crime must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt, yet if a jury find him guilty, then this court will not reverse the finding, if there be any testimony to support it. If the testimony be conflicting, the verdict must stand. In this case the evidence shows that both men drew their pistols and presented them at the same time, and the circumstances proven tend to show that neither was at the time averse to a conflict. It is true there is testimony tending to show that upon some previous occasions the appellant had tried to avoid one; but the jury, acting under instructions which were neither objected nor excepted to, failed to find that he was without fault, or that he acted in self-defense.
The newly-discovered evidence seems to have, in fact, been known to the accused before or during the trial. A witness in his behalf was present at the beginning of it, and absented himself, supposing he would be able to return by the time he would be called as a witness. He did not do so, however. It was the duty of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Curry v. Commonwealth
... ... Appellant ... also filed his affidavit, showing the substance of the newly ... discovered evidence; and this affidavit demonstrates the fact ... that what purports to be newly discovered evidence is merely ... cumulative. This court, in Williams v. Commonwealth, ... 18 S.W. 364, held that the discovery of new evidence which ... was merely cumulative was not sufficient ground for a new ... An ... insuperable objection to both of the grounds relied upon to ... reverse this case is that they only constitute, at best, ... ...