Crawley v. Com.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
Writing for the CourtJONES
Citation568 S.W.2d 927
Decision Date03 July 1978
PartiesRoger Dale CRAWLEY, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. James T. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Page 927

568 S.W.2d 927
Roger Dale CRAWLEY, Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.
James T. WILLIAMS, Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.
Supreme Court of Kentucky.
July 3, 1978.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 22, 1978.

Page 928

Terrence R. Fitzgerald, Daniel T. Goyette, and Richard L. Receveur, Louisville, for appellant Roger Dale Crawley.

Steven J. Kriegshaber, Louisville, for appellant James T. Williams.

Robert F. Stephens, Atty. Gen., Rickie L. Pearson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.

JONES, Justice.

In these consolidated cases Roger Dale Crawley and James T. Williams appeal from judgments of convictions imposing a prison term of 35 years each on a charge of first-degree robbery enhanced on persistent felony offender charges in conformity with a jury's verdict. 1 Crawley and Williams prosecute separate appeals which are consolidated for review. They assign as error the following points in which the issues and facts apply concurrently to each: (1) they were denied the right to a speedy trial; (2) the trial court failed to grant each a fair and full suppression hearing in regard to eyewitness identification; (3) the trial court erred in permitting the introduction of evidence not relevant to the robbery. Crawley assigns as additional errors the following points: (4) the trial court erred in refusing to admit affidavits as the testimony of missing witnesses; (5) the trial court erred in excluding evidence that the co-defendant, Williams, admitted commission of the robbery with a person other than Crawley; (6) the evidence failed to establish that Crawley was 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the first felony offense relied on to enhance his punishment; (7) the trial court erred in admitting in evidence an additional felony conviction that did not apply under the statute for the enhancement of punishment. Williams assigns as an additional error the following point: (8) the trial court erred by not excluding evidence obtained in an illegal search and seizure. This court has considered the facts and law applicable to issues 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8, and find them to be without merit. As to issues 1, 5 and 6, this court deems it appropriate to discuss the relevant facts and law in some detail in order to provide guidelines for future trials.

On the evening of September 29, 1975, a Majik Food Mart on Manslick Road in the city of Louisville, was robbed by a white male who was later identified as Crawley, and a black male later identified as Williams.

Page 929

While Crawley paced back and forth in front of the store, Williams entered and asked Mrs. Maddox, the manager, for a package of cigarettes. When she turned around the black male pointed a pistol at her and said, "That's right baby, this is a hold-up." He ordered Mrs. Maddox and three other customers to lie on the floor. Mrs. Maddox testified she heard a man come into the store. He stood beside her. Although she could only see his pants, she could tell they were not the same as those worn by the black man. The two men ransacked the cash register. The black man stood on Mrs. Maddox's back and ordered her to open the safe. She told him she had no key. At that point she heard the door open and looked up and saw the white man running toward a blue 1967 Thunderbird, which she had previously observed sitting alongside the Majik Mart. Upon hearing the car door open and the horn sound, she said, "That black son-of-a-bitch is gone." To her chagrin, she saw him standing beside her and hastily fell to the floor again. When he finally left, Mrs. Maddox called the police and gave them a thorough description of the men and the automobile.

Based upon the information given by Mrs. Maddox the police officers, about an hour after the robbery, located the 1967 Thunderbird parked near a Convenient Food Market. A black male was sitting in the front seat of the automobile and a white male was standing beside it. They saw a shotgun on the back seat. One of the officers arrested the black male and "frisked" him. He then searched the automobile and found a .22 caliber chrome pistol under the seat where the black man sat. He also found in the glove compartment another box containing $80.63 which had been taken from the Majik Mart cash register. Another officer arrested the white male. They were both charged with carrying a concealed deadly weapon. The two suspects were taken to a police station for a line-up. Mrs. Maddox viewed two line-ups. One consisted of five white males; the other of four black males. She immediately identified Crawley and Williams as the robbers. After the line-up Williams was searched; a key identified as that to the Majik Mart, and four 10-dollar bills were found. The four 10-dollar bills were stolen from Mrs. Maddox's billfold.

Crawley and Williams first argue they were denied the right to a speedy trial. The record reveals they were each arrested on September 29, 1975, and were indicted on January 15, 1976. The trial began on August 22, 1977. Crawley and Williams contend that the delay of 22 months from the date of their arrest until the date of trial deprived them of the right to a speedy trial in violation of the right guaranteed by the 6th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution, and Sec. 11 of the Kentucky Constitution. The United States Supreme Court has held that four factors must be balanced in determining whether the right to a speedy trial has been violated. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). These factors are: the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the defendant's assertion of the right to a speedy trial, and prejudice suffered by the defendant. This court has indicated in prior cases, most recently in McDonald v. Commonwealth, Ky., 569 S.W.2d 134 (1978), that this balancing test is not a precise determination, but turns upon the particular facts of each case. In this case the record is not clear as to reasons for the delay, although at trial the Commonwealth's Attorney stated that part of the difficulty was in obtaining the presence of the chief prosecuting witness who had moved to Mississippi. On three occasions the case was continued on the motion of the Commonwealth. The trial court on its own motion advanced the trial date on three occasions. In their briefs it is argued that Williams was responsible for the delay engendered on April 5, 1977, when his attorney withdrew. The record does not reflect any motion...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 practice notes
  • Taylor v. Simpson, Civil Action No. 5: 06-181-DCR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Kentucky
    • 30 Septiembre 2014
    ...adopted by the Kentucky Supreme Court as Kentucky law in Maynard v. Commonwealth, 558 S.W.2d 628 (Ky. 1977), and Crawley v. Commonwealth, 568 S.W.2d 927 (Ky. 1978). See also Dodson v. Commonwealth, 753 S.W.2d 548 (Ky. 1988). In reaching this conclusion, the Taylor I majority engaged in the ......
  • Fulcher v. Motley, No. 03-6216.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 18 Abril 2006
    ...which the parties do not dispute was the circumstance of Ash's statement. Crawford, 124 S.Ct. at 1364. 4. Crawley v. Commonwealth, 568 S.W.2d 927 5. Respondent appears to argue that the Taylor decision is consistent with Supreme Court precedent if read as setting forth a test to determine w......
  • Hodge v. Com., No. 1996-SC-1085-MR.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • 24 Febrero 2000
    ...be used when a witness persistently refuses to obey a court order to testify, we specifically adopted in Crawley v. Commonwealth, Ky., 568 S.W.2d 927, 931 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1119, 99 S.Ct. 1028, 59 L.Ed.2d 79 (1979) the definition of unavailability contained in Rule 804(a) of th......
  • Commonwealth v. Drayton, SJC–10667.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 1 Octubre 2015
    ...of evidentiary rules where the failure to do so would result in the State not receiving a fair trial”); Crawley v. Commonwealth, 568 S.W.2d 927, 931 (Ky.1978) (adopting a broader exception for statements against interest to bring State evidentiary law into compliance with constitutional req......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
30 cases
  • Taylor v. Simpson, Civil Action No. 5: 06-181-DCR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Kentucky
    • 30 Septiembre 2014
    ...adopted by the Kentucky Supreme Court as Kentucky law in Maynard v. Commonwealth, 558 S.W.2d 628 (Ky. 1977), and Crawley v. Commonwealth, 568 S.W.2d 927 (Ky. 1978). See also Dodson v. Commonwealth, 753 S.W.2d 548 (Ky. 1988). In reaching this conclusion, the Taylor I majority engaged in the ......
  • Fulcher v. Motley, No. 03-6216.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 18 Abril 2006
    ...which the parties do not dispute was the circumstance of Ash's statement. Crawford, 124 S.Ct. at 1364. 4. Crawley v. Commonwealth, 568 S.W.2d 927 5. Respondent appears to argue that the Taylor decision is consistent with Supreme Court precedent if read as setting forth a test to determine w......
  • Hodge v. Com., No. 1996-SC-1085-MR.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • 24 Febrero 2000
    ...be used when a witness persistently refuses to obey a court order to testify, we specifically adopted in Crawley v. Commonwealth, Ky., 568 S.W.2d 927, 931 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1119, 99 S.Ct. 1028, 59 L.Ed.2d 79 (1979) the definition of unavailability contained in Rule 804(a) of th......
  • Commonwealth v. Drayton, SJC–10667.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 1 Octubre 2015
    ...of evidentiary rules where the failure to do so would result in the State not receiving a fair trial”); Crawley v. Commonwealth, 568 S.W.2d 927, 931 (Ky.1978) (adopting a broader exception for statements against interest to bring State evidentiary law into compliance with constitutional req......
  • 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