Roberts v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 86 — INDICTMENT— 1. As the indictment does not charge that the killing was done with “malice aforethought,” it only charges manslaughter, if anything, ■ and it was error to give an instruction as to murder.
Read the full summary
Case 86 — INDICTMENT— 1. As the indictment does not charge that the killing was done with “malice aforethought,” it only charges manslaughter, if anything, ■ and it was error to give an instruction as to murder. (Kaelin v. Commonwealth, 84 Ky., 364; Kennedy v. Commonwealth, 14 Bush, 340; Wharton’s Criminal Law, seo. 517.) 2. The indictment is also defective because it does not contain such statements as slow that the deceased died from the wounds inflicted within a year and a day. (W’harton’s Criminal PI. & Pr., sec. 138; Wharton’s Grim. Law, sec. 312.) 3. The court erred in refusing a…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HAZELRIGG
delivered the opinion of the court.
On. a former trial of this case, a demnrrer to the indictment was filed and overruled. On an appeal to this court, the ruling of the lower court in this respect was approved, and the sufficiency of the indictment will not again be considered. The appellant, for the second time convicted of murder and sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for life, complains on this appeal:
*503First. That he was not "granted a continuance. No absent witness could throw any light on the killing with which he was charged, but would testify, it is said in the…
2Cited by18 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Cosner v. SeeWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1947
- Frasure v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916
- Bowman v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912
- Jones v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1955
- Taylor v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1931
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.