James v. Com.
| Decision Date | 30 March 1983 |
| Parties | Michael P. JAMES, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Jack Emory Farley, Public Advocate, John Michael Brown, Gittleman & Barber, Louisville, for appellant.
Steven L. Beshear, Atty. Gen., Penny R. Warren, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.
Michael P. James was tried and convicted for the offenses of second-degree burglary, KRS 511.030, first-degree rape, KRS 510.040, and receiving stolen property, KRS 514.110. At the persistent felony offender phase of the trial, James was convicted as a first-degree persistent felony offender and the conviction for first-degree rape was enhanced to life imprisonment. James was sentenced to life imprisonment on the persistent felony offender charge and to ten years' imprisonment on the burglary charge to run concurrently. He was sentenced to twelve months in jail on the receiving stolen property charge to run consecutively with the two felonies. We affirm.
James' first assertion of error is that the trial court erroneously declined to sever the charges against him. He argues that the requirements for joinder under RCr 6.18 are not present. The three crimes here were closely related in character, circumstances, and time, and we are of the opinion there is no showing of abuse of discretion and prejudice in the joinder of the offenses for trial. Seay v. Commonwealth, Ky., 609 S.W.2d 128 (1981) and Cardine v. Commonwealth, Ky., 623 S.W.2d 895 (1981). The burglary of the victim's apartment, the rape and finding property stolen from the apartment in the possession of James all occurred within a two-week period.
The evidence of the broken pane of glass and James' fingerprint in our opinion is sufficient evidence to submit the charge of burglary to the jury.
"If under the evidence as a whole it would not be clearly unreasonable for a jury to find the defendant guilty, he is not entitled to a directed verdict." Trowel v. Commonwealth, Ky., 550 S.W.2d 530, 533 (1977).
Mere possession of the stolen pistol is sufficient to submit the case to the jury. KRS 514.110(2). James offered no explanation for his possession of the pistol, and there is nothing in the evidence to show that it was unreasonable for the jury to find a guilty verdict.
When arrested on the rape charge, James was carrying a gym bag. The arresting officer asked James about the bag and was informed by James that someone had handed it to him and that he did not know to whom it belonged. Later, while the gym bag was in the police cruiser and officers were executing a search warrant by searching James' house, one of the officers ran his hand under the gym bag on the car seat and felt what seemed to him to be a pistol. He then proceeded to open the bag and found a pistol, which was later identified by the victim as being the pistol stolen from her apartment some days prior to the rape.
James moved to suppress the evidence of the pistol on the ground of an illegal search and seizure. He did not testify at the suppression hearing. At the hearing, the arresting officer testified that James had denied being owner of the bag and that some "dude" had handed it to him as he left the gymnasium. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. James argues the major premise that the Commonwealth must rely on the "plain view" and "exigency" cases in this situation and that these propositions do not apply. This argument misses the real question, which is analogous to the expectation of privacy cases. We are of the opinion the search here did not violate any expectation of privacy on the part of James. He denied being owner of the bag. There is no "search" here for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, and there is a total absence of any legitimate expectation of privacy. Cf. Sussman v. Commonwealth, Ky., 610 S.W.2d 608 (1981), and Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980).
James requested that the trial court give an "admonition" to the jury that no emphasis be given to James' failure to testify. This request was denied by the trial court. In his argument on this appeal James attempts to equate this request for an admonition with a request for an "instruction" on failure of a defendant to testify. Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U.S. 288, 101 S.Ct. 1112, 67 L.Ed.2d 241 (1981), held that a state trial judge has the constitutional obligation to give a prophylactic instruction upon proper request to minimize the danger that the jury will give evidentiary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
James v. Kentucky, 82-6840
...State's contention that any Carter error here was harmless is best made in state court before it is made in this Court. Pp. 351-352. 647 S.W.2d 794 (Ky.1983) reversed and C. Thomas Hectus, Frankfort, Ky., for petitioner. Penny R. Warren, Frankfort, Ky., for respondent. Justice WHITE deliver......
-
Jenkins v. Commonwealth, 2019-SC-0252-MR
...application of KRS 532.080. Both parties request we resolve an apparent conflict between two of this Court's opinions, James v. Commonwealth , 647 S.W.2d 794 (Ky. 1983), reversed on other grounds by James v. Kentucky , 466 U.S. 341, 104 S. Ct. 1830, 80 L.Ed.2d 346 (1984), and Commonwealth v......
-
Jackson v. Com.
...sentence authorized for the highest class of crime for which any sentence was imposed was decided against him by James v. Commonwealth, Ky., 647 S.W.2d 794 (1983); Devore v. Commonwealth, Ky., 662 S.W.2d 829 We find no merit in the remaining allegations of error. Jackson's conviction for th......
-
Deemer v. Com.
...United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967); Commonwealth v. Johnson, Ky., 777 S.W.2d 876 (1989); James v. Commonwealth, Ky., 647 S.W.2d 794 (1983). When an illegal item is revealed to third parties, an examination at their instance by the government does not violate th......