Boggs v. Com.
Decision Date | 11 November 1966 |
Citation | 424 S.W.2d 806 |
Parties | Luther BOGGS et al., Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
John Y. Brown, Sr., Lexington, for appellants.
Robert F. Matthews, Atty. Gen., H. N. McTyeire, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Douglas Graham, Commonwealth Atty., Campton, for appellee.
Appellants, Luther Boggs and Clarence Southwood, along with Willie Hounshell, who has since died, were convicted of the offense of voluntary manslaughter and were sentenced to ten years in prison.
We are faced with the initial question as to whether this appeal is properly before the court. Timely motion was made to dismiss the appeal because of failure to comply with RCr 12.54 which reads:
'The time within which an appeal may be taken to the Court of Appeals shall be ten days from the entry of the judgment or order appealed from, but if a timely motion has been made for a new trial or in arrest of judgment, an appeal from a judgment of conviction may be taken within ten days after entry of the order denying the motion.'
The court found the record to be incomplete and uncertain and returned it to the circuit court for correction.
The amended record indicates that the verdict was returned and judgment and sentence entered on August 21, 1963. The motion for a new trial was filed on August 28, 1963. The notice of appeal was filed on November 18, 1963.
By order of this court entered September 16, 1966, (effective January 1, 1967), RCr 12.54 was amended as follows:
'For the purpose of clarifying RCr 12.54 according to what this court considers to be its present meaning, the period at the end of RCr 12.54 is changed to a semicolon, and the following proviso is added:
"Provided, however, that in the case of a motion for new trial made later than five days after return of the verdict, the appeal must be from the order overruling or denying the motion, and the review on appeal shall be limited to the grounds timely raised by the motion as provided by RCr 10.06."
In McGregor v. Commonwealth, Ky., 407 S.W.2d 705, decided October 28, 1966, it was said:
The motion for new trial in the case under consideration was not served within the five-day period. It was not based upon the ground of newly discovered evidence and therefore did not fall under the exception. It was not 'timely' made and did not have the effect of extending the ten-day period for taking an appeal from the judgment. This appeal is not properly before this court.
Even though we have concluded that we are required to dismiss the appeal, nevertheless, in order to determine whether grave error has been committed of such importance that appellants were denied their constitutional or basic rights to a fair trial, we will consider contentions raised by appellants in their brief.
It is insisted that the trial court violated appellants' substantial rights to a fair and impartial trial by refusing to grant a severance of trials. It is said that evidence by and about Hounshell was made admissible by the joint trial when it would have been inadmissible on separate trials. It is argued that prior to the enactment of the present rules of criminal procedure which became effective January 1, 1963, the old criminal code had provided in § 234 that persons jointly tried may be competent as witnesses for each other unless the indictment charges a conspiracy. The case of Mathis v. Commonwealth, 4 Ky.Law Rep. 53, 11 Ky. Opinions 686 (1882), is cited as authority for the proposition that Hounshell would not have been a competent witness against appellants because he was a joint indictee for conspiracy to murder. It is stated that the present rules of criminal procedure are silent on this point and that there is no statutory law applicable....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schrimsher v. Com.
...ruling on a motion to sever for an abuse of discretion. Foster v. Commonwealth, 827 S.W.2d 670, 679-80 (Ky.1991); Boggs v. Commonwealth, 424 S.W.2d 806, 808 (Ky. 1966); Smith v. Commonwealth, 375 S.W.2d 819, 820 (Ky.1964). A criminal defendant is entitled to a severance only upon a showing,......
-
Allee v. Com.
...the absence of other factors, a denial of the motion is therefore not an abuse of discretion.' We concur in that statement. Boggs v. Com., Ky., 424 S.W.2d 806 (1966). Stacy admitted he was with Fitzgerald when he rented the truck, followed him to the warehouse, watched the loading and helpe......
-
Boyd v. Commonwealth
...do not rise to the level of reversible error." Id. (citing Lewis v. Commonwealth, 463 S.W.2d 137 (Ky. 1970); Boggs v. Commonwealth, 424 S.W.2d 806, 808 (Ky. 1966); Collins v. Commonwealth, 396 S.W.2d 318, 319 (Ky. 1965); McMillan v. Commonwealth, 258 Ky. 354, 80 S.W.2d 24 (1935); Wiley v. C......
-
Com. v. Mitchell
...to an agreement do not rise to the level of reversible error. Lewis v. Commonwealth, Ky., 463 S.W.2d 137 (1970); Boggs v. Commonwealth, Ky., 424 S.W.2d 806, 808 (1966); Collins v. Commonwealth, Ky., 396 S.W.2d 318, 319 (1965); McMillan v. Commonwealth, supra; Wiley v. Commonwealth, 246 Ky. ......