Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1886-03-12
Opinions Of the Court 81 Appeals III the
KEENAN, Case.

NJ ~ sE
Chief Jnstice Alvey, and assooiats
Justices Bryan. Robinson, Stone aud
Irving, sat in tie KernaD eases ID dsv.
The question: being an objection by
the defence TO admitting lestmoney
as to Kernan's flourshiDg and point
ing pistol at several parties at
1'racey's Saloon about Eve minutes
before be killed bis uncle Attorney
General Roberts sppeared for the
State and James ReVeIl and Il. g.
RuddelI for the appellant. After
argument the judges retired for con-
suItation and then delivered the fol-
lowing opinion:
jude Irving delivered the opinion
of the Corrf. She sUle exception
in this case is TO the admis.
sion of evidence showing what
occurred at another saloon. BALI
square where the homicide occurred,
aud only tour or five minutes before
the killing was done. The Only
questions therefore is whether there
was error In the admission Of that
evidence. If the evidence had been
offered for the purpose Of showing an
assault upon another person at diff
fcrent place aud time, q different
question would have prevented, AID
one on which there is q conflict of
authority, and upon which we do not
feel called upon to pass on this case.
So prominent legal writer as Roscoe
4th cd page 80, says the motion
that the evidence In itself discloses
another offence makes il inadmissi-
bic is now exploded and recites nun.
erous authorities TO support bis posi-
tioua The evidence was not shown
10 show another offence. 1t was evil
denly offered to show the movements
Of the prisoner hisand general conduct
Immediately preceding the offence, of
which he has been convicted, to show
that he was armed and prepared for
mischief, aud was seemingly at that
moment bent on mischief, and 10
frame of mind likely to result in mis-
cuief 1t could not be offered to show
his character for turbulence and was
not admissible for such purpose. A
single act of that kind would not
prove that be had that character.
But such an act, so soon followed by
the killing of a man, did show q reck.
less and mischievons frame Of mind
at period SO near the killing as to
be admissible; though the thing itself
may mol possibly DO legltimately part
OF the res gestae. We think it was
evidence 10 show he as armed aud
prepared to kill, though il did not, OF
itself show intention to kill the de-
ceased What was said aud done by
others, at the same time, aud in com
pany with him. was only part of
what he was directly connected with,
and was inseparably connected with
The history of bis conduct at the time,
and necessary to an intelligent appre-
citation of bis doiDgs. We think the
law is correctly extracted from the
authorities aud summarized 10 Sth
ed. Of Whorton, on evidence 81 aud
80. 1t is there laid down that evil
dence OF the character here involved
is admissible for the purpose OF show
ing end explaining the movements
aud general conduct OF the prisoner
before and AFTER" an offence which
Immediately preceded the one for
which be is being tried. The cases
cited and relied on by the appellants
counsel do not reach or meet the
question which we here decide. We
End 90 error in the ruling. The rul-
ing is therefore affirmed and cause
remanded.
Chief Judge Miller will not sem
tence Herman until be consults with
Judges Smith and Jones who sat
with him in the case.