Williams v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 95 — INDICTMENT APPEAL PROM BELL CIRCUIT COURT. 1. It was competent for defendant to testify that he believed he was in danger at the hands of deceased.
Read the full summary
Case 95 — INDICTMENT APPEAL PROM BELL CIRCUIT COURT. 1. It was competent for defendant to testify that he believed he was in danger at the hands of deceased. (People v. O’Brien, 78 Cal., 41; McKown v. Hunter, 80 N. Y., 625; White v. Tucker, 16 Ohio St., 468.) 2. It was error to allow the Commonwealth to introduce testimony in ■chief after it had closed its testimony, no reason being given why the witness was not introduced sooner. ¡Even if the rejected testimony was competent, it could not have affected the result, and defendant was not prejudiced by its rejection.
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE LEWIS
DELIVERED THE OPINION OE THE COURT.
The homicide in this case occurred under the following circumstances :
William Dickinson, deceased, was in some way connected with a butcher-shop belonging to his brother, and came back to the shop from a trip made to purchase cattle, drunk, and with a pistol in his hand drove another employe away. An agent of the shop-owner, who was absent, upon being informed of his conduct, went to the place, and he was also compelled to leave. Thereupon the accused, Rogers Williams, a deputy sheriff, was sought and applied to by-the agent to go and arrest him.…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Truax v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912
- State v. TurnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- Howard v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1928
- Starr v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1895
- Moore v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1911
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.