Rhodes v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case Cl — INDICTMENT FOR MISDEMEANOR APPEAL FROM HENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The remarks of the Commonwealth’s Attorney were improper, and the appellee is entitled to a new trial on account of them. People y. Ahlen, 92 Cal., 282; Elliott’s Geni. Prac., sec. 692; State v. Bobbst, 32 S. W., 1151; Sinclair v. State, 32 S. W., 531; Hatch v. State, 8 Tex.
Read the full summary
Case Cl — INDICTMENT FOR MISDEMEANOR APPEAL FROM HENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The remarks of the Commonwealth’s Attorney were improper, and the appellee is entitled to a new trial on account of them. People y. Ahlen, 92 Cal., 282; Elliott’s Geni. Prac., sec. 692; State v. Bobbst, 32 S. W., 1151; Sinclair v. State, 32 S. W., 531; Hatch v. State, 8 Tex. App., 416; People v. Dane, 59 Mich., 550. 2. The court erred in excluding the deed whereby the property was conveyed to Kate Cahill. The .instructions to the jury correctly defined a bawdy house and' prescribed the penalty. Rhodes v. Com., 10 Ky.…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE PAYNTER
delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellant, Rhodes, was tried under an indictment for maintaining a bawdy-house. On the trial of the case he sought to show that the title to the property was in *355another, and in support of that tendered a deed. The deed had never been delivered and accepted. In arguing the case before the jury, over the objection of the appellant, the Commonwealth’s attorney used language as follows, to-wit: “The business of the defendant, Rhodes, in this town is to rent and furnish bawdy-houses, and he makes his living by public bawdry and public shame. He…
2Cited by2 opinions
- McHargue v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1931
- Bradshaw v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1920