Munday v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 36 — INDICTMENT APPEAL ER0M SIMPSON CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The instructions of the court upon the question of self-defense are error. 2. To whom must the danger and the means of escape have been apparent? To the appellant or to the jury? Evidently to the appellant.
Read the full summary
Case 36 — INDICTMENT APPEAL ER0M SIMPSON CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The instructions of the court upon the question of self-defense are error. 2. To whom must the danger and the means of escape have been apparent? To the appellant or to the jury? Evidently to the appellant. By the instruction the jury are authorized to find the defendant guilty if the danger was not apparent to them, or if the danger was apparent to them, they were still authorized to find him guilty if a safe means of escape was apparent to them. 3. Another objection is, that the defendant should have escaped if there were any…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE LEWIS
DELIVERED THE OPINION OE TIIE COURT.
Appellant being indicted for manslaughter, was convicted and sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for the term of four years.
One of the errors assigned is, that the court refused to permit him to challenge peremptorily VV. R. Holdy, and ruled that the case should be tried with him as one of the jury.
It appears from the bill of exceptions that the names of twelve jurors having been drawn, who, upon examination, were found qualified, the cour# notified the commonwealth’s attorney and defendant that they could then pass upon the jury and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Holloway v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1875
3Cited by13 opinions
- Biggs v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1915
- Sizemore v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1914
- Hawley v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1921
- Shelby v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1891
- Taylor v. FranklinCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1925
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.