Dewberry v. Commonwealth
Dewberry v. Commonwealth, 241 Ky. 726 (1931)
Winning Party
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Key Issue
Willful Murder
Case Type
CRIMINAL
Facts
•
Dewberry claimed a struggle with Tillery resulted in Tillery being shot unintentionally.
•
They arrived in Elizabethtown, Hardin County, Kentucky, at night.
•
They were trying to be stopped, and hearing shots, they turned into a short street.
•
One companion broke into Tillery's home through a window.
•
They traveled across the country to Thomas Tillery's home.
•
Tillery was shot in the abdomen and died at the hospital.
•
Dewberry claimed a sprained ankle slowed him down.
•
They asked Tillery to borrow his automobile pump.
•
Shots were fired inside the house.
•
Dewberry was arrested the next morning.
•
Walter Dewberry, Charles Rogers, and Walter Holmes traveled from Chicago to Nashville, armed with pistols.
•
Dewberry's companions planned to rob Tillery of his car.
•
Dewberry admitted to shooting his pistol until it was empty.
•
They abandoned their car and ran after hearing another shot.
Explore this Case with AI
Ask about this case, find precedent, analyze legal issues, or draft provisions. Powered by all precedential U.S. cases (10M+)
No credit card required
Key Holdings
•
The trial court did not err in proceeding with the trial because Dewberry's counsel did not inform the court of the assault until after the verdict, and his conduct during the trial indicated he was able to continue.
•
The trial court did not err in refusing to grant a continuance because Dewberry's counsel failed to comply with the requirements of Section 189 of the Criminal Code of Practice by not providing a written motion or affidavit in support of the request.
Citations
Dewberry v. Commonwealth, 241 Ky. 726, 44 S.W.2d 1076, 1931 Ky. LEXIS 156 (1931)
Legal Reasoning
The court reasoned that the trial court did not err in refusing a continuance because the motion was not supported by an affidavit as required by the Criminal Code of Practice. The court also found that the trial court did not err in proceeding with the trial after the alleged assault on Dewberry's counsel because the counsel did not inform the court of the assault until after the verdict and continued to participate in the trial. The court emphasized that a party cannot take chances with the verdict and then seek a new trial on grounds that should have been raised during the trial.
Outcome
The judgment of the trial court convicting Walter Dewberry of willful murder and sentencing him to death was affirmed.
Want to Learn More About StrongSuit?
StrongSuit has advanced legal AI tools for deep insights & comprehensive analysis
No credit card required
Copyright 2026 StrongSuit AI, Inc. | All Rights Reserved