Brown v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Brown v. Commonwealth

13 Ky. Op. 559, 7 Ky. L. Rptr. 218, 1885 Ky. LEXIS 257

DecidedSeptember 12, 1885

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Ky. Op. 559 (Brown v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Commonwealth, 13 Ky. Op. 559, 7 Ky. L. Rptr. 218, 1885 Ky. LEXIS 257 (Ky. Ct. App. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

While the facts in this case show that the conviction could not have been had but for the confession of the accused — which seems to have been in good faith, but tends to show the absence almost of a felonious intent — yet the fact that the house was entered or broken into and the bottle of bitters taken is established by other testimony and this added to the confession authorized the conviction.

The code provides (sec. 240) that a confession of a defendant, unless made in open court, will not warrant a conviction, unless accompanied with other proof that such an offense was committed.

It is apparent from the testimony of the brother of the accused that the window was broken and the bitters gone. This was proof showing that the offense had been committed, but by whom was not known. Here the appellant. admits the commission of the offense and the fact that the store was broken into and the bitters taken is established by other proof. There are mitigating circumstances in this case that may appeal to the Executive Clemency, but can not be considered as a defense to a charge of felony, although the troubled conscience of the appellant has caused him to expose his own wrong.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

While the facts in this case show that the conviction could not have been had but for the confession of the accused — which seems to have been in good faith, but tends to show the absence almost of a felonious intent — yet the fact that the house was entered or broken into and the bottle of bitters taken is established by other testimony and this added to the confession authorized the conviction.

The code provides (sec. 240) that a confession of a defendant, unless made in open court, will not warrant a conviction, unless accompanied with other proof that such an offense was committed.

It is apparent from the testimony of the brother of the accused that the window was broken and the bitters gone. This was proof showing that the offense had been committed, but by whom was not known. Here the appellant. admits the commission of the offense and the fact that the store was broken into and the bitters taken is established by other proof. There are mitigating circumstances in this case that may appeal to the Executive Clemency, but can not be considered as a defense to a charge of felony, although the troubled conscience of the appellant has caused him to expose his own wrong.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Ky. Op. 559, 7 Ky. L. Rptr. 218, 1885 Ky. LEXIS 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-commonwealth-kyctapp-1885.