Conard v. Commonwealth

3 Citing cases

  1. Barclay v. Commonwealth

    499 S.W.2d 283 (Ky. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 3 times

    With the case in this posture the court inquired when the case was called for trial as to whether the litigants were ready. The response from both was in the affirmative. If there was non-compliance with the order to furnish information the response that Barclay was ready for trial was a waiver. Cf. Fulton v. Commonwealth, Ky., 294 S.W.2d 89 (1956), Conard v. Commonwealth, 214 Ky. 137, 282 S.W. 1082 (1926). He cannot now be heard to complain.

  2. Phillips v. Commonwealth

    12 S.W.2d 305 (Ky. Ct. App. 1928)   Cited 7 times

    In Mullins v. Commonwealth, 172 Ky. 92, 188 S.W. 1079, the rule was thus stated: "It is always competent, when one is accused of guilt of a felonious homicide and seeks to excuse himself by a plea of self-defense, to prove the threats, assaults, menaces and lying in wait, which he has suffered at the hands of the deceased, when there is some evidence of acting in self-defense at the time and place of the killing, to shed the light upon the beliefs, motives, fears and necessities of the accused at the time of the homicide, and in some instances the probability of whether the accused or the deceased is the aggressor, but it is never proper to group these evidences in an instruction, because it places an undue emphasis upon such part of the evidence, to the prejudice of the other testimony in the case." Again in Conard v. Commonwealth, 214 Ky. 137, 282 S.W. 1082, in response to a like criticism, the court said this: "Conard's plea was self-defense, which was properly presented. He says that Hill was the aggressor, and that the court should have presented that feature of the case to the jury; but that was not necessary, as it made no difference why Conard was in danger. If he was not himself the aggressor, and was in danger, he had the right to defend himself.

  3. Lawson v. Commonwealth

    6 S.W.2d 488 (Ky. Ct. App. 1928)   Cited 5 times

    He argues, secondly, that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury because the court failed to present to the jury in connection with the self-defense instruction the idea that Wilkerson was the aggressor in the controversy. This precise question was considered in the case of Conard v. Commonwealth, 214 Ky. 137, 282 S.W. 1082, and there resolved against the position of the appellant. It is lastly contended that the trial court erred in the admission and rejection of testimony.