Judges: Willis
Filed Date: 10/7/1930
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
Affirming.
Hershel Hendrickson was indicted for the murder of his uncle, Charlie Cox. He was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to serve twenty-one years in the penitentiary. He seeks a reversal of the judgment upon numerous grounds which will be discussed and disposed of in the course of the opinion.
A brother of the deceased was permitted to identify the covers of the bed on which Cox was killed, and they were introduced in evidence. It is complained that the witness was not sufficiently familiar with the articles to identify them. It is well settled that things pertaining to the scene of a crime are competent to be offered in evidence and displayed before the jury. Roberson, Criminal Code, sec. 518, p. 705. The point whether the witness was sufficiently familiar with the articles becomes unimportant in view of other testimony in the case. The appellant testified that he shot Cox in bed at a time when he was partly covered. Several other witnesses testified that the deceased was killed on his bed, and that bullet holes were seen in the covers. In view of the undisputed *Page 464
fact that Cox was shot in bed with covers partially over him, it is clear that appellant was not prejudiced by the exhibition of the covers, or by their introduction as evidence on insufficient identification. Tackett v. Commonwealth,
We are not authorized to reverse a judgment for errors not affecting adversely the substantial rights of the party complaining. Criminal Code, secs. 340 and 353; Abbott v. Commonwealth,
It is stated that the instructions are not correct, but no reason is assigned to support the statement. The suggestion that the instructions required the jury to find the appellant guilty of murder or of manslaughter, even though the defendant acted in self-defense, is not well founded. The instructions followed the forms often approved by this court. Hobson on Instructions to Juries, p. 890; Carnes v. Commonwealth,
Complaint is made of the argument of an attorney for the prosecution. We have held repeatedly that so long as an attorney in his arguments to a jury adheres to the record for his facts, and to reason for his deductions no one has any just ground for complaint. Johnson v. Commonwealth,
Finally, the appellant relied for a new trial upon newly discovered evidence. He filed the affidavits of three men, concerning the condition of the bed clothing where the deceased was killed. In view of the fact that Cox confessedly was killed in bed, and the further fact that some of the bed clothing, which partly covered him at the time, contained bullet holes, there is no force in the suggestion that a new trial should be granted to hear evidence of that type. The rule of practice prevailing in this jurisdiction is that a new trial will not be granted. upon newly found evidence that is immaterial, cumulative, impeaching, or incapable of exerting a decisive. influence in the decision of the case. Brewer v. Commonwealth,
The judgment is affirmed.
Gibson v. Commonwealth ( 1928 )
Ferguson v. Commonwealth ( 1928 )
Brewer v. Commonwealth ( 1929 )
Tackett v. Commonwealth ( 1929 )
Browder v. Commonwealth ( 1929 )
Morgan v. Commonwealth ( 1929 )
Brummett v. Commonwealth ( 1930 )
Moore v. Commonwealth ( 1928 )
Ratcliffe v. Commonwealth ( 1929 )
Branham v. Commonwealth ( 1928 )
Johnson v. Commonwealth ( 1928 )
Eldridge v. Commonwealth ( 1929 )
Abbott v. Commonwealth ( 1930 )
Milburn v. Commonwealth ( 1928 )
City of Providence v. Young ( 1929 )