Daggit v. Commonwealth

237 S.W.2d 49, 314 Ky. 721, 1951 Ky. LEXIS 739
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedFebruary 27, 1951
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 237 S.W.2d 49 (Daggit 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
Daggit v. Commonwealth, 237 S.W.2d 49, 314 Ky. 721, 1951 Ky. LEXIS 739 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951).

Opinion

VAN SANT, Commissioner.

.-Under an indictment charging him with-the crime of being an accessory before the fact to the willful murder (committed by Edward Kilgore) of Doctor C. B. Martin, appellant was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to serve 11 years in the Kentucky State Reformatory. Appellant seeks, reversal of the judgment on the grounds (1) the verdict was -not sustained by sufficient evidence, (2) the instructions were erroneous and prejudicial, and (3) the verdict was the product of the prejudice of the jury.

The principal question for our determination is whether there was sufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice Kilgore. Sections 241 and 242 of the Criminal Code of Practice provide:

“Section 241. A conviction can not be-had upon the testimony of an accomplice, unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the -commission of the offense; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely show that the offense was committed, and the circumstances thereof.
“Section 242. In all cases where, bylaw, two witnesses, or one witness with corroborating circumstances, are requisite, to warrant a conviction, if the requisition be not fulfilled, the court shall instruct the jury to render a verdict of acquittal, by which instruction they are bound.”

In Williams v. Commonwealth, 257 Ky. 175, 77 S.W.2d 609, 611, reference is made to the apparent conflict in previous opinions of this Court in respect to the quality of evidence necessary for the Commonwealth to produce in corroboration of an accomplice’s testimony,' in order to sustain a conviction. It was there pointed out that [50]*50the language of'the Code “other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense” does not require such evidence as, standing alone, would support conviction but only such evidence as, standing alone, would have the tendency expressed in the Code. In other words, the evidence need not produce every link in the chain of connection of the defendant with the crime; but, on the other hand, standing alone, it must place the defendant in pursuit of a course which indicates he is connected with the commission of the crime. We now will look to the evidence pertinent to the question.

At about 7:00 o’clock on the morning of June 30, 1948 the bodies of Doctor and Mrs. C. B. Martin were found' in the front bedroom on the first floor of their home, approximately one mile from the city of Bowling Green. Doctor Martin’s body was lying on the floor between the bed and the door and that of Mrs. Martin was lying on the bed. A great quantity of blood had been spilled on and near the bodies. A blood-stained ribbon was found on Doctor Martin’s chest. There were particles of sand on the bed, and bits of glass from a broken flashlight lens were found near the body of the Doctor. The room otherwise was not disarranged. An examination of Doctor Martin’s body disclosed three pistol shot wounds in the head, a "scratch or two” were observed on the 'body, and there were contusions and abrasions on the head. The coroner testified that death was caused by the pistol shot wounds.

Later in the day or early in the night á Deputy Sheriff of Warren County and a member of the Police Force of the City of Bowling Green, acting on information, went to Glasgow in Barren County in search of Edward Kilgore, whom they found seated in an automobile in front of his mother’s home. They asked him to accompany them to Warren County for questioning, which he agreed to do. The officers found a flashlight with a broken lens, keys, pocket knives, a small keyhole flashlight, wire, a woman’s shoulder bag, some boots, and overshoes. Part of these articles were found in the riding compartment and part in the trunk compartment of the automobile. They also found three or four cartridges in a top covering which had been removed from an old thermos bottle. The cartridges were for use in a .32 Caliber Revolver. No pistol or other firearm was foimd. After returning to Bowling Green, Kilgore was questioned and confessed to the commission of the crime. In his confession, he did not implicate anyone else.

Several months after the crime was committed, an inquest was held to determine the sanity or insanity of Kilgore. The jury found him to, be capable of disinguish-ing between right and wrong, thus paving the way for the criminal prosecution. He remained in jail until his trial, at which he pleaded guilty to two indictments for murder, the one of Doctor Martin, the other of Mrs. Martin. His punishment was fixed at life imprisonment in each case. After his conviction and while in jail he .made a statement implicating appellant, George Melvin Daggit. This statement was made fourteen months after the crime was committed. On Kilgore’s testimony, the indictment herein was returned by the grand jury.

We will not detail all of Kilgore’s testimony because of its sordid character. Suffice it to say that it was a virtual autobiography of a person whose depravity all 'but destroys his reliability and his integrity as a witness. It is important to note however that Kilgore’s urge to kill divers and sundry persons, including Doctor and Mrs. Martin, attended in one instance by an obsession to feel the blood of his intended victim run a course over his own body, commenced many years prior to his acquaintanceship with appellant, whom he now accuses of influencing him to kill Doctor Martin, and who he contends actually participated in the commission oí the crime itself. He related his own motive for the crime to be that he was in love with a young girl from Bowling Green, who, a short time before the murder, married a son of Doctor and Mrs. Martin. Kilgore tho'uglit that his victims were responsible for alienating the affections of this young lady from him to their son. The motive he ascribed to Daggit is fantastic to say the least. He and Daggit were to kill Doctor and Mrs. Martin, whose estates then would [51]*51be inherited by their son; they then planned to kill the son, whereupon the estate would pass to the son’s widow; Kilgore then would marry the widow and Daggit thereafter would live with them and enjoy a life of ease. The entire testimony of Kil-gore indicates that he is a person lacking in mental stability, even though he may know right from wrong. On this account, the evidence, which it is contended corroborates his testimony, must be viewed with a great deal of scrutiny.

The Commonwealth points to the shattered lens of the flashlight, to the sand on the bed, and to the bullet holes in the body of Doctor Martin and his wife as showing the crime was committed by more than one person, thus corroborating the testimony of Kilgore. We do not think that this physical evidence leads to the conclusion drawn, but, if it did, or if it bad been such as to show the crime was committed by a hundred men, there is nothing in this evidence to even point a finger of suspicion at Dag-g-it.

Kilgore testified that the Martins were killed with a revolver stolen from the home ’of Max Nahm, Esq., of Bowling Green, with whom Daggit roomed at one time. Mr. Nahm testified that a revolver was stolen from his home, but the theft was committed four months after Daggit had moved his place of residence and six months before the crime was committed. The revolver was not produced on the trial and there is no evidence, except Kilgore’s testimony, even to indicate that Mr. Nahm’s revolver was used in the commission of the crime.

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

Related

Commonwealth v. Wolford
4 S.W.3d 534 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 1999)
Glasco v. State
513 So. 2d 54 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1987)
Commonwealth v. Bowling
497 S.W.2d 720 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1973)
Faerber v. Commonwealth
452 S.W.2d 624 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1969)
Creech v. Commonwealth
412 S.W.2d 245 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1967)
Bond v. Commonwealth
414 S.W.2d 131 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1967)
Noe v. Commonwealth
396 S.W.2d 808 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1965)
Hughes v. Commonwealth
342 S.W.2d 251 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1960)
Lee v. Commonwealth
329 S.W.2d 57 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
237 S.W.2d 49, 314 Ky. 721, 1951 Ky. LEXIS 739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daggit-v-commonwealth-kyctapp-1951.