Shouse v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 106 — INDICTMENT APPEAL PROM ESTILL CIRCUIT COURT. The indictment does not charge a felony, and the court erred in instructing the jury upon the -view that appellant, could he found guilty of a felony. The indictment does not state the fact that the stabbing was done “ with intent to kill ” the wounded person. The mere stating of the offense to he wounding with intent to kill is not an allegation that it was so done.
Read the full summary
Case 106 — INDICTMENT APPEAL PROM ESTILL CIRCUIT COURT. The indictment does not charge a felony, and the court erred in instructing the jury upon the -view that appellant, could he found guilty of a felony. The indictment does not state the fact that the stabbing was done “ with intent to kill ” the wounded person. The mere stating of the offense to he wounding with intent to kill is not an allegation that it was so done. (Criminal Code, secs. 122, 124, 137; Gen. Stats., chap. 29, art. 6, sec. 2; Commonwealth v. Tanner, 5 Bush, 317; Commonwealth v. Turner, 8 Bush, 2; Taylor v. Commonwealth, 1…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Bennett
The appellant was convicted of the crime of malicious cutting with intent to kill.
The indictment accuses the appellant “ of the offense-of cutting John Reffit with intent to kill him, committed in manner.as follows: The said Wm. Shouse did unlawfully, willfully and feloniously cut, thrust and stab John Reffit with a knife, from which cutting and stabbing said Reffit did not die.”
It is contended that it is not sufficiently charged that the appellant cut Reffit with intent to kill him. The 124th section of the Criminal Code provides: “ The indictment must be direct and certain as regards — . .…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. SchatzmanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1904