Lewis v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)

Lewis v. Commonwealth

213 S.W.2d 614, 308 Ky. 115, 1948 Ky. LEXIS 870

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)

DecidedMay 18, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 213 S.W.2d 614 (Lewis v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lewis v. Commonwealth, 213 S.W.2d 614, 308 Ky. 115, 1948 Ky. LEXIS 870 (Ky. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion op the Court by

Yan Sant, Commissioner

Affirming.

Appellant was convicted and sentenced to serve eight years in the State Reformatory under an indictment charging him with wilfully and maliciously cutting and wounding his wife with intent to kill. The only complaint relied on for reversal is that the attorney for the Commonwealth in his argument used prejudicial and inflammatory remarks to the jury. As the Assistant Attorney General has pointed out in his brief, the error complained of is not contained in that portion of the Bill of Exceptions which was approved and signed by the Trial Judge. Therefore, we can not entertain the question. Criminal Code of Practice, Sections 280 and 282; Alsept et al. v. Commonwealth, 240 Ky. 395, 42 S. W. 2d 517, 518. However, we have examined the affidavit of counsel for appellant and the transcript of the closing argument of the Commonwealth’s Attorney which purport to contain the matters complained of, and have concluded that the purported remarks of the Commonwealth’s Attorney were not of such nature as to be prejudicial to the substantial rights of appellant.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion op the Court by

Yan Sant, Commissioner

Affirming.

Appellant was convicted and sentenced to serve eight years in the State Reformatory under an indictment charging him with wilfully and maliciously cutting and wounding his wife with intent to kill. The only complaint relied on for reversal is that the attorney for the Commonwealth in his argument used prejudicial and inflammatory remarks to the jury. As the Assistant Attorney General has pointed out in his brief, the error complained of is not contained in that portion of the Bill of Exceptions which was approved and signed by the Trial Judge. Therefore, we can not entertain the question. Criminal Code of Practice, Sections 280 and 282; Alsept et al. v. Commonwealth, 240 Ky. 395, 42 S. W. 2d 517, 518. However, we have examined the affidavit of counsel for appellant and the transcript of the closing argument of the Commonwealth’s Attorney which purport to contain the matters complained of, and have concluded that the purported remarks of the Commonwealth’s Attorney were not of such nature as to be prejudicial to the substantial rights of appellant.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 S.W.2d 614, 308 Ky. 115, 1948 Ky. LEXIS 870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-commonwealth-kyctapphigh-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack