Johnson v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 57 — INDICT MEN T — 1. An indictment which charges the offense of willfully and maliciously striking and wounding with intent to kill is not good under a statute which creates the offense of willful and malicious striking and bruising with intent to kill, although it may he sufficient to support a verdict and judgment for assault and battery. (Criminal Code, secs. 122. 165; Bishop on Crim. Law, 3d ed., sec. 329.) The indictment should follow the language of the statute.
Read the full summary
Case 57 — INDICT MEN T — 1. An indictment which charges the offense of willfully and maliciously striking and wounding with intent to kill is not good under a statute which creates the offense of willful and malicious striking and bruising with intent to kill, although it may he sufficient to support a verdict and judgment for assault and battery. (Criminal Code, secs. 122. 165; Bishop on Crim. Law, 3d ed., sec. 329.) The indictment should follow the language of the statute. (Conner v. Commonwealth, 13 Bush, 721; Commonwealth v. Tanner, 5 Bush, 317; Commonwealth v. Turner, 8 Bush, 2; Mitchell…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Bennett
delivered th* opinion op the court.
The appellant was convicted of maliciously striking Eldridge Coyle with a large stick — a deadly weapon— with the intention of killing him. The indictment charges that the appellant “unlawfully, willfully and maliciously did assault, strike and wound Eldridge Coyle,” &c.
Objection is made to the sufficiency of the indictment, consisting in the fact that the word “bruised” is left out. The language of the statute that relates to cutting, striking, &c., is: “Or shall willfully and maliciously cut, strike or stab another with a knife, sword or otter deadly…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Toler v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1893