Baker v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 49 —INDICTMENT APPEAL PROM KNOX CIRCUIT COURT. 1. N o conspiracy is established against defendants'nor any of them to do any unlawful act, and, therefore, any statement made by JohnW. Baker, Mariah Baker, or any party jointly indicted and not made in the presence of appellant was incompetent.
Read the full summary
Case 49 —INDICTMENT APPEAL PROM KNOX CIRCUIT COURT. 1. N o conspiracy is established against defendants'nor any of them to do any unlawful act, and, therefore, any statement made by JohnW. Baker, Mariah Baker, or any party jointly indicted and not made in the presence of appellant was incompetent. (Starkie on Evidence, vol. 2, p. 400.) 2. The court should have given an instruction telling the jury that appellant had a right to protect his property, and if, in attempting to do so,, deceased or those with him put appellant in danger of death or great bodily harm, appellant had a right to defend…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE BENNETT
delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellant and his father had had a lawsuit with Daniel C. Baker, in which some real estate belonging to the appellant and John W. Baker was sold, and purchased by Daniel C. Baker. The circuit court held that Daniel C. Baker was entitled to said land and put him in possession of it. This court reversed that decision, holding that the appellant and his father were -entitled to the land. Thereupon, upon the return of the cause to the circuit court, that court’ caused, by proper writ, the appellant to be put into the possession of said land,…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Price v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1908
- State v. CushingWashington Supreme Court · 1896
- Kirk v. Territory of OklahomaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1900
- Utterback v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1899
- Stacey v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1920
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.