Wright v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 04 October 1927
• Parties: Wright v. Commonwealth.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

221 Ky. 226

Wright v. Commonwealth.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Decided October 4, 1927.

1. Criminal Law. — Motive may be proven to show that act was willful or done with criminal intent, but is not essential element of crime.

2. Criminal Law. — Jury's verdict should not be disturbed by Court of Appeals on ground that it is flagrantly against evidence, unless it appears so against the truth as to shock the court's conscience.

3. Criminal Law. — In murder trial, it was proper to introduce clothing worn by deceased at time of killing as evidence in chief.

4. Criminal Law. — Where defendant, in murder trial, offered evidence that hammer of pistol cut hole in deceased's shirt when he snapped pistol, intending to shoot defendant, commonwealth was properly permitted to introduce shirt in evidence.

Appeal from Pike Circuit Court.

ROSCOE VANOVER for appellant.

FRANK E. DAUGHERTY, Attorney General, and G.D. LITSEY, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDGE LOGAN.

Affirming.

Appellant was convicted of manslaughter, and his punishment fixed at four years in the state reformatory. He urges three grounds for reversal: (1) The verdict is not supported by the evidence. (2) The court sustained objections to competent testimony offered by appellant (3) The court over his objections allowed evidence in chief to be introduced as rebuttal testimony.

Appellant appears to be of the opinion that the evidence was not sufficient to uphold the verdict of the jury because no motive was shown for the killing. Appellant killed his half-brother, Lee Wright, and, if the witnesses for the commonwealth are to be believed, there was neither excuse nor justification for the killing. Appellant is 18 years of age, and his brother was about 27. His brother had been in the army for some years, and had returned to the neighborhood only about a month before he was killed. On the day of the killing, he was considerably under the influence of liquor, and had a pistol concealed in his bosom. He had been disorderly at different places in the neighborhood during the day. He asked appellant to go with him to a particular place, and appellant reluctantly went along, riding behind him on a mule. When the store of Ervine Anderson was reached, they stopped, and appellant alighted from the mule and went into the store and there procured a package of cigarettes and matches which he returned and gave to his brother. His brother then alighted from the mule and made a search on the ground for a pistol holster which he did not find. He then went into the store, and, after having been there a few minutes, he and the appellant were seen whispering together. Appellant drew his pistol and shot his brother six times. Appellant testified that his brother was trying to draw the pistol from his bosom, and that he thought it was necessary for him to shoot him to save his own life. If...