Crews v. Commonwealth

159 S.W. 638, 155 Ky. 122, 1913 Ky. LEXIS 192
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedOctober 3, 1913
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 159 S.W. 638 (Crews 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
Crews v. Commonwealth, 159 S.W. 638, 155 Ky. 122, 1913 Ky. LEXIS 192 (Ky. Ct. App. 1913).

Opinion

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Miller

Reversing.;

Martha Crews and her 17 year old son, Willie Knuckles, were indicted, convicted, and given life’ sentences in the penitentiary for the murder of Graven Crews, the husband of Martha Crews, on Sunday, May 19, 1912. Martha Crews appeals and asks a reversal upon the single ground that the evidence against her does not sustain the verdict.

1. Preliminary to the consideration of the appeal upon its merits, we will dispose of the motion of the Commonwealth to strike from the record the affidavit of Willie Knuckles, which was tendered about four months after-the trial of the case. In that affidavit Willie Knuckles confessed that he alone murdered his step-father, and that his mother had nothing whatever to do with it.

When the appellant offered to file the affidavit, the court overruled the motion; whereupon appellant further moved the court to permit the affidavit to . be filed and. made a part of the bill of exceptions; but this motion was likewise overruled. Exceptions were duly taken to these' rulings of the court, but no effort was ■ ever made to get. the affidavit into the record by a bill of exceptions. The clerk, however, copied it into the record when he came to make it for this appeal. The circuit judge properly over-, ruled appellant’s motion to file the affidavit, since it constituted no part whatever of the proceedings on the trial. The trial was had at the. December term 1912, and the .affidavit was not tendered until the April, term 1913. When the trial judge refuses to make a paper a part of the record, the only way of getting it into the record for the purposes of review, is by a bill of exceptions; the mere act of the clerk in copying the paper into the transcript when it has not been made a part of the record, either by an order of the court filing it, or by a bill of exceptions, amounts to nothing. The affidavit, therefore,, has no proper place in this record, and the motion of the Commonwealth to strike it from the record, will have to be sustained.

[124]*1242. The record for this appeal was not well or carefully prepared. The testimony was not taken by a stenographer, but was written out from memory about four months.after the.trial.. It is fragmentary, and in many respects unsatisfactory. It appears, however, that the appellant, Martha Crews, is about fifty years old, and has been twice married. Her' husband, ’ Craven Crews, also had been twice married.. Each of them had children by the first marriage. Martha and Craven had married about two years before Craven’s death. The evidence ís uncontradicted that she was uniformly kind to his children. Upon this subject his son Haden Crews, who lived at home, testified, that ‘if there was ever any'trouble in the family, I never knew it; mother and all of them got along well.”

Her son, "Willie Knuckles, had formerly lived at home with his mother and step-father, but some months before the death of Craven Crews, Willie had.gone to live with his uncle Elvin Page, who lived about four miles from the Crews home.

The appellant, with her husband, and three of his children, were, at-the time, of his death, living together. On Sunday, May 19, 1912, the day of .Craven Crews’ death, he and his wife had visited their- brother-in-law, John Humes, who lived some three miles away. While there, Mrs. Crews became ill and her husband carried her home about four o’clock in a buggy. According to appellant’s testimony they reached home about four o’clock and ate supper about sun down. She then washed the dishes, did some little repairing upon Craven’s clothes and went to bed early, leaving her husband sitting up.

Haden Crews,-the sixteen year old son of Craven Crews, and Burrell Crews, another son, eleven years old, slept in an adjoining room, while a still younger child, Bessie Crews, slept in the -room with her parents. Appellant says her husband gave her some medicine after she went to bed, and said he would remain up until the horses got through eating; that she went to sleep, and next saw him at her bed where he aroused her, calling “Mama, Mama”; that she got up hastily, and seeing that he was sinking, she held him in her arms and helped him down upon the floor as easily as she could, drawing his head into her lap. She and Bessie both called for Haden, and told him to call Tom Crews-ór some one else over the telephone. After some difficulty some one answered [125]*125the’telephone, to whom appellant said 'thát her husband had fallen dead, and asking the person at the telephone to come to the house at once. She also .told . Burrell Crews to go for Tom Crews.

Bessie Crews, the child who was- sleeping in the room with her father and her mother, did not testify; but Haden Crews, the 16-year-old son who was sleeping in the adjoining room, testified that he went to bed that night a little before dark, and went to sleep, and did not awake until he heard the report of a gun. He then got up and ran to the door between the two rooms and found it closed by a button on the other side of the door. He pushed the button off and entered the room, where he found his father lying on the floor with appellant standing over him. He asked her how it happened, but she did not answer him. He says appellant said to him that if he ever told it she would kill him. She then directed Haden to go and tell Tom Crews to come up there, and to tell Tom that his father had fallen dead. Haden said his stepmother telephoned to several of the children, and to other people who later came to the house that night, and that she began to “shout and take on”, although she did not shed a tear before that time. Haden Crews further says that about a month before the death of his father .he heard appellant call her son Willie Knuckles over the phone, and tell him to come to her house. Haden says Willie Knuckles and his mother were frequently in the kitchen together in close conversation, and that when .any of the family would approach them, they would quit talking until the others left; that the door to the room in which he was sleeping was fastened on the night of his father’s death, but had never been fastened before. He told his step-mother that she had killed his father, whereupon she said to him if he ever said what he knew she would kill him. He further says that his step-mother kept him with her until after the examining trial, and that he was afraid of her.

Upon his cross-examination Haden admitted that he had testified before the examining court that he did not hear the report of the gun, but that he was awakened by his mother calling for him. He explains this discrepancy in his testimony by saying that at the time of the examining trial he was afraid the appellant would kill him if he had then testified as he afterwards did upon the final trial. He lived with his step-mother for three [126]*126weeks a'fter-'his father’s death, and she neyer: threatened him any more, nor ever told him not to tell what he knew;

'Burrell Crews,- the 11-year-old boy who was sleeping with his brother Haden in the adjoining room, went to bed-leaving his father sitting on the porch. Haden aroused him, telling him that his father was dead, whereupon-he went into the other room where his mother told him to go to Tom Crews’ and get Tom to come to the house. He further testifies about the visit of his father and step-mother to John Humes and their return in the buggy; that he went to bed about dark; that his father,, mother and Willie Knuckles, and all of them, got along well together; and that his .step-mother was as good to' him .as if she had been his own mother.

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

Related

Howard v. Commonwealth
48 S.W.2d 1080 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1932)
Burns v. Commonwealth
38 S.W.2d 229 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1931)
Partin v. Commonwealth
248 S.W. 489 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1923)
Cloninger v. Commonwealth
231 S.W. 535 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1921)
McDaniel v. Commonwealth
215 S.W. 544 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1919)
Crews v. Commonwealth
171 S.W. 188 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1914)
Deaton v. Commonwealth
163 S.W. 204 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
159 S.W. 638, 155 Ky. 122, 1913 Ky. LEXIS 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crews-v-commonwealth-kyctapp-1913.