Cook v. Com.
| Decision Date | 03 December 1954 |
| Parties | Estil COOK, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
H. K. Spear, Somerset, for appellant.
J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Zeb A. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant, Estil Cook, was jointly indicted with Billy Heath, Carl Harrison, Bobby Walden and Charles Loveless by the grand jury of Pulaski County for the crime of chicken stealing, a crime denounced by KRS 433.250(4). The indictment charged that 20 chickens of the value of $1 each and of the aggregate value of $20 were stolen from Dault Gibson and his wife, the owners of the poultry. At the joint trial of Cook, Harrison and Walden on February 6, 1954, they were found guilty and each was sentenced to the penitentiary for two years. Loveless had previously entered a plea of guilty and was given the same sentence as the others. Cook alone appeals on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence.
The only witness for the Commonwealth who implicated Cook in the crime was Melvin Ragles, a 15-year-old boy, who testified he was in the company of Cook, Harrison, Walden and Loveless on the night the chickens were stolen. He stated he met with them at a service station at Brown's Bluff which was operated by Billy Heath, a defendant in the indictment, and accompanied these four persons in Billy Heath's car to the village of Elihu in which the Gibsons live. At this place, according to Ragles, Cook, Harrison, Walden and Loveless got out of the car and were gone two or three hours. When they returned they had about 20 chickens, tied with strings, which they put in the back of the car on the seat. Afterwards they started back toward Billy Heath's filling station and Ragles said he left the party at a small store located on the Monticello road where it joins Highway No. 27 and waited there until he caught a ride to his home at Bronston.
On cross-examination, Ragles admitted that when Loveless mentioned that he, Cook, Harrison and Walden were 'going to steal some chickens,' he manifested a desire to go along with them. He also indicated that those involved in the foray were well known to him. When his four companions reached the Gibson place, he waited for them in the car while they went after the chickens. He said the chickens were placed in the back seat and all of them rode in the front seat on the return trip. He was arrested later and put in jail, charged with the same offense as Cook and the other defendants. While there the sheriff approached him and persuaded him to 'tell all' that he knew. It is not shown that he was promised immunity if he 'turned state's evidence,' but, at any rate, the record does indicate he was not proceeded against in any manner.
Gilmore Phelps, sheriff of Pulaski County, testified that one of his deputies arrested Ragles and brought him to the sheriff's office where Ragles told him, Phelps, the same story we have outlined above. The sheriff stated that in his conversation with the boy, he told him to 'come clean, to tell the truth--that the other boys weren't going to protect him and there wasn't any use in him protecting them.' This the boy agreed to do after his talk with this officer.
At the close of the Commonwealth's evidence all the defendants moved for a directed verdict. Relying upon Section 241 of the Criminal Code of Practice , they contended there, as Cook maintains here, that Ragles was an accomplice and, since his evidence was not corroborated in any respect, their conviction should not stand. This motion was overruled and exceptions were saved.
Cook and his co-defendants, Harrison and Walden, all testified that they did not steal the chickens, that they knew nothing about the theft, and that they were not present at the time and place testified to by Ragles. Cook and Harrison admitted on cross-examination that each of them had been convicted of a felony. Loveless testified that only he and Ragles stole the Gibson chickens and he denied that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Head v. Com.
...an aider and abettor. Crouch v. Commonwealth, 201 Ky. 460, 257 S.W. 20; Means v. Commonwealth, 238 Ky. 366, 38 S.W.2d 193; Cook v. Commonwealth, Ky., 273 S.W.2d 390. In applying these principles, neither mere association with the accused prior to or after commission of the offense; Wilson v......
-
Harris v. Com.
...accused up with the principal fact of the commission of the offense. Price v. Commonwealth, 296 Ky. 144, 176 S.W.2d 271; Cook v. Commonwealth, Ky., 273 S.W.2d 390. The corroborative evidence in this case is itself almost, if not altogether, complete proof of guilt. The record shows Harris o......
-
Chaney v. Com.
...and joining in the criminal act as an aider and abettor, or, if absent, by advising and encouraging in its commission. Cook v. Commonwealth, Ky., 273 S.W.2d 390; Miller v. Commonwealth, 240 Ky. 355, 42 S.W.2d 523; Baker v. Commonwealth, 212 Ky. 50, 278 S.W. Section 241 of the Criminal Code ......
-
Magruder v. Com.
...if not present, by advising and encouraging the performance of the act. Miller v. Commonwealth, 240 Ky. 355, 42 S.W.2d 523; Cook v. Commonwealth, Ky., 273 S.W.2d 390. Ordinarily one who steals goods is not an accomplice of the person who knowingly receives them. Solomon v. Commonwealth, 208......