Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

79 Ky. 495

Turnbull v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Decided October 6, 1881

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · decided 1881-10-06

Case 102 — INDICTMENT APPEAL FROM GRANT CIRCUIT COURT. Section 24, page 414, General Statutes, provides that “ neither husband nor wife shall be competent to testify for or against each other.” The statute applies alike to criminal as well as to civil cases. The alleged error of the court is not made one of the grounds for a new trial, and therefore this court will not consider it.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 1931

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1881-10-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

CHIEF JUSTICE LEWIS

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2Appellant, Sarah J. Turnbull, and William Brown, being jointly indicted and tried for the crime of willful and malicious cutting and wounding her husband, Melvin Turnbull, *496she was, by the verdict of the jury, found guilty, and her punishment affixed at confinement in the penitentiary for the term of one year, and judgment against her was accordingly rendered. •

¶3She has appealed from that judgment, and complains of an error of the coürt below in permitting her husband to testify as a witness upon the trial against her.

¶4It is not necessary that the error of the court in admitting incompetent testimony be relied upon in a motion for new trial in order to enable the accused to avail herself of that error upon appeal. (Johnson v. Commonwealth, 9 Bush, 228.)

¶5By section 24, chapter 37, title "Evidence,” General Statutes, it is enacted 1 ‘ that neither husband nor wife shall be competent for or "against each other, or concerning any communication made by one to the other during marriage, whether called while the relation subsists or afterwards,” &c.

¶6There is nothing to indicate that chapter 37 was intended by the legislature to apply exclusively to civil actions and proceedings; nor can section 24 by its terms be so confined in its application.

¶7The court, therefore, in permitting her husband to testify against her, erred to the prejudice of appellant, and the judgment of conviction must be reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to grant her a new trial, and for other proceedings consistent with this opinion.

/79/ky/495 · .json · Public domain