| "{\"id\": \"1418113\", \"name\": \"Samuel Head v. Commonwealth\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"Head v. Commonwealth\", \"decision_date\": \"1883-03-08\", \"docket_number\": \"\", \"first_page\": \"11\", \"last_page\": \"12\", \"citations\": \"12 Ky. Op. 11\", \"volume\": \"12\", \"reporter\": \"Kentucky Opinions, containing the unreported opinions of the Court of Appeals\", \"court\": \"Kentucky Court of Appeals\", \"jurisdiction\": \"Kentucky\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-10T19:04:15.811795+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"\", \"parties\": \"Samuel Head v. Commonwealth.\", \"head_matter\": \"Samuel Head v. Commonwealth.\\n[Abstract Kentucky Law Reporter, Vol. 4 \\u2014 824.]\\nCriminal Law \\u2014 Cutting with Intent to Kill.\\nAn instruction is erroneous which informs the jury that if the accused wilfully and maliciously cut and wounded the prosecuting witness with a knife they should find him guilty, in a case where the accused was charged with cutting with intent to kill, for it is not a felony unless the cutting was with the intent to kill and the charge to the jury said nothing about intent with which the cutting was done.\\nAPPEAL FROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT.\\nMarch 8, 1883.\\nCooper, McChord & Thomas, for appellant.\\nP. W. Hardin, for appellee.\\n[Cited, Bailey v. Commonwealth, 24 Ky. L. 1114, 70 S. W. 838.]\", \"word_count\": \"342\", \"char_count\": \"2012\", \"text\": \"Opinion by\\nJudge Hargis:\\nThe appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of the offense of wilful and malicious cutting and wounding with intent to kill, and sentenced to the penitentiary for the period of one year. From this sentence he appealed.\\nThe serious error committed against his substantial rights was in giving the first instruction, by which the jury were told if the appellant wilfully and maliciously cut and wounded James A. Wathen with a knife, etc., they should find him guilty,-etc. The acts set forth in the instruction did not constitute the statutory offense with which appellant was charged. It is a felony under our statute (Gen. Stat. [1881] Ch. 29, Art. 6, Sec. 2) to wilfully and maliciously cut or stab another with intent to kill, but it is not a felony to wilfully and maliciously cut or stab without such intent where death does not ensue; hence the instruction ought to- have contained the additional words \\\"with intent to kill\\\" or their equivalent. The jury were authorized to find appellant guilty of a felony on facts which constituted a misdemeanor only, and which did not constitute the offense for which he was indicted.\\nFor these- reasons the instruction was erroneous and the judgment is reversed and cause remanded with directions to grant appellant a new trial.\"}" |