Bruce v. Com.
| Decision Date | 16 May 1969 |
| Citation | 441 S.W.2d 435 |
| Parties | William Jacob BRUCE, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
William C. Morton, Gordon, Gordon & Logan, Carroll Morrow, Moore, Morrow & Frymire, Madisonville, for appellant.
John B. Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., Howard E. Trent, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.
CLAY, Commissioner.
Appellant was convicted of the crime of rape and was given a life sentence without benefit of parole. A prior conviction of the same offense was set aside because of evidence introduced which had been obtained by an illegal search. Bruce v. Commonwealth, Ky., 418 S.W.2d 645. On this appeal the only claimed errors relate to two items of evidence.
The prosecuting witness positively identified appellant as the man who had forced her into her car at knife point in a parking lot, had her drive him out in the country, committed the act, and returned the car to the parking lot after putting her out. The prosecuting witness testified that a purse she had in the car was missing after the incident, and there was other testimony about its loss. Appellant contends this evidence was irrelevant because there was no proof connecting him with the article. However, the loss of this purse was one of the circumstances which was an incident of the occurrence, and it tended to corroborate the prosecuting witness' story of what had happened. (The defense was an alibi.)
There is a further reason this evidence was relevant when offered. At a former trial appellant had testified that he had seen the purse and had it in his possession. (The admission of evidence of the discovery of this purse by an illegal search was the error which resulted in reversal of the judgment in the case above cited.) The Commonwealth could anticipate that appellant would testify at the present trial and it planned to, and did, ask him about the purse. He denied having seen it, and no further questions were asked about it. After appellant's denial, the purse did not have the relevance and materiality that it might have had but we are concerned with the competency of the evidence concerning it at the time such evidence was introduced.
Assuming, however, that this evidence was irrelevant and immaterial, we can find no substantial prejudice in admitting it which would warrant reversal. It is appellant's position that the members of the jury must have known that at appellant's first trial it was proved that he had possession of this purse and such fact corroborated his connection with the crime. We cannot make this assumption about the jury's prior knowledge or its action upon it. On voir dire, the members of the jury acknowledged that they knew nothing of the facts, and even though they had read in the newspapers about the crime at one time, they remembered none of the details. It would strain credulity to believe, as appellant contends, that the jury convicted ap...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Clair v. Com., No. 1999-SC-0029-MR.
...... See also Brooks v. Commonwealth, Ky., 114 S.W.3d 818, 821-22 (2003). And, the trial judge has the "discretion to determine the sufficiency of the showing which would justify the reading of an absent witness'[s] testimony [.]" Bruce v. Commonwealth, Ky., 441 S.W.2d 435, 437 (1969). Although the Commonwealth could have made a much cleaner record in this regard by tendering the letter from Ms. Van Zandt's physician to the court, filing with the Court an affidavit from either the physician or the prosecutor himself, see Brooks, ......
-
Clair v. Commonwealth, No. 1999-SC-0029-MR (KY 2/19/2004), 1999-SC-0029-MR.
...the sufficiency of the showing which would justify the reading of an absent witness'[s] testimony[.]" Bruce v. Commonwealth, Ky., 441 S.W.2d 435, 437 (1969). Although the Commonwealth could have made a much cleaner record in this regard by tendering the letter from Ms. Van Zandt's physician......
-
State v. Hennon
...Bachelor v. State, 143 Ga.App. 442, 238 S.E.2d 579 (1977); Bruce v. Commonwealth, 418 S.W.2d 645 (Ky.1967), later app. 441 S.W.2d 435 (Ky.1969); State ex rel. Townsend v. District Court of Fourth Judicial District, 168 Mont. 357, 543 P.2d 193 (1975); Warthen v. State, 557 P.2d 466 (Okl.Cr.1......
-
Dickerson v. Com.
...a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims." The answer to this issue is succinctly stated in Bruce v. Commonwealth, 441 S.W.2d 435 (Ky.1969): Appellant also contends that the testimony read was not duly authenticated, as required by RCr 7.22. We think this objection......