Court Opinion

ID: 9778183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:35:34.051091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:04.402502
License: Public Domain

MONTGOMERY, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully disagree with the majority opinion herein. The rule in alibi cases is that only an instruction on murder is given. The reason is that the accused’s defense is that he did not commit the murder because he was elsewhere. Certainly the accused, as here, does not claim that homicide was done “in sudden heat of passion, and upon provocation ordinarily calculated tó excite passion beyond control.” This does not submit any theory of defense held by the accused.
In Morris v. Commonwealth, 306 Ky. 349, 208 S.W.2d 58, it was specifically held that no manslaughter instruction should be given in a murder case where the defense was an alibi. See Barnes v. Commonwealth, 179 Ky. 725, 201 S.W. 318, and cases cited therein. In an alibi case there is no room for the accused to make inconsistent claims of alibi and provocation or excuse. The two defenses are mutually exclusive. If the accused claims that he was not present at the killing, he certainly cannot claim a defense based on factors that require his presence there. Thus, there was no possible basis for a manslaughter instruction in this case, and it should not be given on a new trial. Canada v. Commonwealth, 281 Ky. 641, 136 S.W.2d 1061; Davenport v. Commonwealth, 285 Ky. 628, 148 S.W.2d 1054; and Lee v. Commonwealth, Ky., 329 S.W.2d 57.
I, therefore, think that the majority opinion is wrong and is contrary to certain long-established rules of the law of homicide. See 10A Kentucky Digest, Homicide @=>300(9) and 309(3).
STEWART, J., concurs in this dissent.