Murray v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Murray v. Commonwealth

289 S.W.2d 203

DecidedJanuary 27, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 289 S.W.2d 203 (Murray 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

Murray v. Commonwealth, 289 S.W.2d 203 (Ky. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted of shooting and wounding another in sudden heat and passion. His punishment was fixed 'at one year in jail and a fine of $500. He seeks a reversal of the judgment on the grounds that (1) his plea of former jeopardy should have been sustained, and (2) his substantial rights were prejudiced by alleged improper arguments made by the prosecuting attorney in his closing argument to the jury.

We think the plea of former jeopardy was properly overruled because the appellant’s first trial was for a different offense, against a different person, although both offenses grew out of the same difficulty. An examination of the record concerning the questioned statements of the prosecutor convinces us that no prejudice resulted against the appellant’s substantial rights.

The motion for an appeal is overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted of shooting and wounding another in sudden heat and passion. His punishment was fixed 'at one year in jail and a fine of $500. He seeks a reversal of the judgment on the grounds that (1) his plea of former jeopardy should have been sustained, and (2) his substantial rights were prejudiced by alleged improper arguments made by the prosecuting attorney in his closing argument to the jury.

We think the plea of former jeopardy was properly overruled because the appellant’s first trial was for a different offense, against a different person, although both offenses grew out of the same difficulty. An examination of the record concerning the questioned statements of the prosecutor convinces us that no prejudice resulted against the appellant’s substantial rights.

The motion for an appeal is overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 S.W.2d 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-commonwealth-kyctapp-1956.