Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

87 Ky. 440

Basham v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Decided September 29, 1888

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · decided 1888-09-29

<p>Criminal Law — Evidence.—It is competent for the Commonwealth to prove that the defendant, after he was accused of the crime with which he is charged, fled or concealed himself, or was guilty of any other conduct inconsistent with his innocence. It was, therefore, competent in this case to prove that, after the defendant was put in jail by the order of the examing court, he conducted himself in such a way as indicated that he was feigning insanity.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1888-09-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently December 1955

2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

3018881890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

JUDGE BENNETT

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The appellant having been convicted in the Breckinridge Circuit Court of the crime of rape, committed on his niece, a girl of sixteen years of age, and the court having overruled Ms motion for a new trial, lie has appealed to this court.

¶3The girl swore positively that the appellant raped lier. The appellant swore that he did not touch her.

¶4The Commonwealth’s attorney was permitted, over the objection of the appellant, to prove by the jailer of Breckinridge county, that shortly after the appellant was pnt in jail by the order of the examining court, he was guilty of such conduct as indicated that he was feigning insanity. The appellant now complains of the ruling of the court in reference to that matter.

¶5It is competent for the Commonwealth to prove that. *441the accused, after committing the act or having been accused of it, fled or concealed himself, or was guilty of any other conduct inconsistent with his innocence. If the appellant did feign insanity, the jury had a right to infer from that fact that he, having'no meritorious defense, purposed to fix up a spurious defense as the only available one against the truth of the charge ; and such conduct being inconsistent with innocence, it was proper for the jury to consider it for what it was worth.

¶6The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

/87/ky/440 · .json · Public domain