|19 Ky.L.Rptr. 1427, 102 Ky. 381|
|Court of Appeals of Kentucky.|
|WILLIAMS v. COMMONWEALTH.|
|Dec. 7, 1897.|
Appeal from circuit court, Knox county.
"To be officially reported."
Under an indictment for maliciously shooting at and wounding another with a deadly weapon, John Williams was found guilty of shooting and wounding in sudden heat and passion, and appeals.
DU RELLE, J.
Under an indictment for maliciously shooting at and wounding another with a deadly weapon, with an intention to kill such person, the appellant was found guilty of shooting and wounding in sudden heat and passion, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $500. The evidence tended to show that, after a quarrel, the defendant attacked one Jouwdy, and drew a pistol, as he claims, for the purpose of striking Jouwdy with it; that in the scuffle the weapon was discharged, and Jouwdy was struck in the knee.
The grounds for reversal relied on are:
1. That the second instruction as to shooting and wounding in sudden heat and passion, without previous malice, was error, because not a degree of the offense charged in the indictment, viz. malicious shooting and wounding with intent to kill. This exact point seems to us to be decided in Tyra v. Com., 2 Metc. (Ky.) 2, against appellant's contention; and we think that the question is settled by section 263 of the Criminal Code, which provides that the offenses named in each subdivision of the section shall be deemed degrees of the same offense, in the meaning of section 262, and in the second subdivision names all injuries to the person by maiming, wounding, beating, and assaulting, whether malicious or from sudden passion, and whether done or not, with the intention to kill. The offense denounced by section 1242, Ky. St., is, under this section of the Code, clearly a degree of the offense denounced by section 1166, and a conviction under the former section would bar a prosecution under the latter,
2. The next ground urged for reversal is the admission of testimony by the prosecuting witness as to the amount and extent of his injury. We think this testimony competent, not only as tending to show the intent with which the injury was inflicted, but as proper for the jury to consider in fixing the amount of punishment.
3. The third ground urged for reversal is that there was no testimony to show that appellant fired the pistol. Inasmuch as the testimony clearly showed that he drew the pistol, had hold of it, and was scuffling with Jouwdy for its possession at the time it went off, we think the jury were warranted in concluding that he fired it.
WILLIAMS v. COMMONWEALTH.
43 S.W. 455, 19 Ky.L.Rptr. 1427, 102 Ky. 381
Last Update Tuesday, 18-Dec-2012 01:34:37 EST
Copyright © 2015 by the KYGenWeb Team. All
rights reserved. Copyright of submitted items
belongs to those responsible for their authorship or
creation unless otherwise assigned.