Stallings v. Com.

Decision Date10 June 1977
Citation556 S.W.2d 4
PartiesJames C. STALLINGS, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

Jack Emory Farley, Public Defender, Timothy T. Riddell, Asst. Public Defender, Frankfort, for appellant.

Robert F. Stephens, Atty. Gen., Deedra Benthall, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.

JONES, Justice.

James C. Stallings appeals from a judgment sentencing him to life imprisonment pursuant to a jury verdict finding him guilty of murdering his wife.

Stallings raises three issues on this appeal: (1) that it was prejudicial error for a witness to mention that he had refused to take a lie detector test; (2) that it was prejudicial error for the trial court to permit colorful, gruesome photographs of the victim to be introduced into evidence; (3) that it was prejudicial error for the trial court to permit testimony that Stallings had accidentally shot and killed a previous wife.

The evidence of the Commonwealth established that at approximately 4 A.M. on August 12, 1975, Stallings' wife was mortally wounded by a bullet fired from close range by a RG .38 revolver. The Commonwealth also established that Officer Bob Morris of the Owensboro Police Department sold Stallings the revolver in October, 1969. The evidence for the Commonwealth established that the revolver was found in the trunk of Stallings' automobile some 13 hours after the shooting. Two witnesses for the Commonwealth testified they saw Stallings place something in the trunk of his automobile shortly after the shooting. A witness for the Commonwealth testified that some two weeks before the shooting Stallings said that he was "going to have to kill all of those son-of-a-bitches someday."

Stallings testified in his own behalf. He stated that he was awakened around 4 A.M. and saw someone standing at the foot of his bed. He described this person as a large man. When he realized it was not his oldest son, he rolled off the bed to grab his service revolver. While he was rolling off the bed he heard a shot. Before he could get his revolver, he heard other shots fired by the unknown assailant. Stallings testified that he began shooting at the intruder. He followed him into the hall. He was unable to pursue the unknown person further because he discovered his house was on fire. Stallings testified that he awakened his 12-year-old daughter. He then returned to his room, picked his wife up off the bed and carried her out into the yard. According to Stallings, when he, his wife and daughter were safe from the fire, he attempted to crawl back into the house to see if he could save his three other children. The fire was out of control and the smoke was so dense he was unsuccessful in his attempt to save the children.

Stallings further contends that two or three weeks before the fire he had received a phone call from an anonymous person who informed him that, "They were going to burn him and his house." He steadfastly denied shooting his wife. Stallings denied also that he had purchased the revolver with which his wife was murdered. He admitted an incident in 1969 that led police officers to seize the revolver from him, but denied that he had seen it since 1969. Stallings' theory of the case is that an unknown assailant obtained possession of the revolver sometime between 1969 and the time that it was used to murder his wife. Stallings does not explain how the revolver ended up in the trunk of his car.

Officer Fred Hall of the Owensboro Police Department mentioned in his testimony that Stallings had refused to take a lie detector test. After an objection the trial court admonished the jury to disregard that testimony. Stallings asserts that the trial court's admonishment increased the prejudicial effect of the testimony because the trial court stated that the polygraph is used by law enforcement agencies as an investigative tool. Of course the introduction of this testimony was error. However, this court is of the opinion that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Poole v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • January 7, 1983
    ... ... But see, e.g., Pinkney v. State, 241 So.2d 380, 382 (Fla.1970); Stallings v. Commonwealth, 556 S.W.2d 4, 5 (Ky.1977). Moreover, at least one court has recognized, in a case strikingly similar to the instant case, that ... ...
  • People v. Eickhoff
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • November 30, 1984
    ... ... Biderman, Deputy Director, Kevin T. McClain, Staff Atty., State's Attys. Appellate Service Com"'n, Springfield, for plaintiff-appellant ...         Michael B. Metnick, Metnick & Barewin, Springfield, for defendant-appellee ...     \xC2" ... People (1959), 139 Colo. 397, 339 P.2d 998; but see Stallings v. Commonwealth (Ky.1977), 556 S.W.2d 4 (mention by police officer in testimony that defendant had refused to take lie detector test constituted ... ...
  • James v. Kentucky, 82-6840
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 18, 1984
    ... ... Commonwealth, 652 S.W.2d 655, 662 (Ky.1983); Stallings v. Commonwealth, 556 S.W.2d 4, 5 (Ky.1977), to consider particular evidence for purposes of evaluating credibility only, Harris v. Commonwealth, 556 ... ...
  • Ice v. Com.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • February 16, 1984
    ... ... Commonwealth, 298 Ky. 366, 182 S.W.2d 948 (1944); Bowman v. Commonwealth, Ky., 290 S.W.2d 814 (1956); and Smith v. Commonwealth, Ky., 366 S.W.2d 902 (1962) ... 3 Colbert v. Commonwealth, Ky., 306 S.W.2d 825 (1957); Henderson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 507 S.W.2d 454 (1974); Stallings ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT