Edwards v. Commonwealth

• Citation: 298 Ky. 366
• Parties: Edwards v. Commonwealth.
• Decision Date: 17 October 1944
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)

298 Ky. 366

Edwards v. Commonwealth.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky. Criminal Division.

October 17, 1944.

1. Criminal Law. — In murder prosecution, defendant's statement in his alleged confession that victim was apprehended in Louisville, after which defendant and his companion drove victim out the Dixie highway toward Elizabethtown, coupled with evidence that body was found on the road between Louisville and Elizabethtown

at a point in Jefferson county, was sufficient to prove venue in Jefferson county.

2. Criminal Law. — In murder prosecution, pictures of deceased at scene of crime were properly exhibited to jury, where it appeared that pictures fairly represented condition of body and scene of crime at time it was first discovered.

3. Criminal Law. — In murder prosecution, where it was proven that wound on victim's head was produced by blunt instrument, such as butt end of a pistol, and defendant's alleged confession, which he repudiated on witness stand, stated that a pistol had been used to force victim to drive his automobile to scene of crime, evidence concerning discovery of pistols was competent.

4. Criminal Law. — In murder prosecution, where pistols themselves were exhibited to jury and insignia of United States Army was inscribed on them, officer's testimony that they were army pistols was cumulative.

5. Criminal Law. — In murder prosecution where victim was strangled, testimony that bullets were found in automobile which defendant and his companion allegedly stole from victim was not prejudicial, even if testimony was improper because no evidence was introduced relative to bullets having been used in commission of the crime.

6. Criminal Law. — Defendant could not make contention on appeal that alleged confession introduced in evidence was unlawfully obtained, where defendant at trial did not testify to any fact in support of contention that confession was coerced, but testified that he had not made a confession, and denied that he had ever seen persons who testified that he did.

7. Criminal Law. — In murder prosecution, testimony as to admission by defendant at time of his arrest that he had sealed his doom in Kentucky a week previous to his arrest was not incompetent on ground that it referred to an offense other than one upon which he was being tried.

8. Homicide. — Where no eyewitness to homicide is introduced, and proven physical facts admit of theory that manslaughter or lesser degree of homicide had been committed, trial court has duty of instructing jury on various degrees of homicide.

9. Homicide. — Where physical facts are such as to preclude theory that killing was result of a sudden affray, or sudden heat and passion, trial court is warranted in refusing to give instruction on voluntary manslaughter.

10. Homicide. — Where only physical facts proven in case were that victim was gagged, strangled, and hit on back of head, evidence did not justify an instruction on voluntary manslaughter.

11. Homicide. — Where murder was committed in pursuance of commission of another crime in which both defendant and his companion were participants, even if companion killed victim, defendant would be deemed as guilty of murder as if he had actually committed the act resulting in victim's death.

12. Homicide. — The purpose of prescribing alternate punishments for murder is to permit jury to determine whether defendant on trial has shown any circumstances in mitigation of the extreme penalty.

13. Criminal Law. — It is incumbent upon attorney representing commonwealth to fully represent evidence in its true light, because any statement uttered by him in a criminal case is more or less strengthened by his official position.

14. Criminal Law. — Where defendant's life is at stake, technical rules of procedure must give way to more lofty aim that justice may be done.

15. Criminal Law. — Prosecuting counsel's statement in his argument to jury that it made no difference who did the killing, and that he did not know whether defendant or his companion did it, constituted prejudicial misconduct, where counsel at time of making statement knew that defendant's companion had made confession to officers of another state relating that he was the one who committed acts resulting in victim's death, and that such acts were done without defendant's knowledge.

16. Criminal Law. — Where statement in prosecuting counsel's argument to jury was highly prejudicial to rights of accused, Court of Appeals, considering penalty involved, would take notice of error in the statement and direct a reversal, though no objection was made to the statement.

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court.

Guy Shearer and Robert B. Hardison for appellant.

Eldon S. Dummit, Attorney General, and M.J. Sternberg, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before Loraine Mix, Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY VAN SANT, COMMISSIONER.

Reversing.

On Sunday morning, June 27, 1943, at about 3:00 o'clock, the body of Carl Heitlauf was found alongside and about twenty (20) feet distant from, Valley Road in Jefferson County, between Louisville and Elizabethtown. Two handkerchiefs were tied and knotted around his neck; a wound on the head appeared to have been caused by a blunt instrument. At about 8:00 o'clock on the morning of July 5, 1943, Lawrence B. Harvey, Wilma Haney, and appellant, Elbert Edwards, were arrested in Columbia County, Florida, after having been pursued by officers from Suwannee County, a distance of thirty-five or forty miles. The arrest was made pursuant to information that the three had attempted to commit robbery in the State of Florida. The suspects were taken into custody after they had been forced to abandon an automobile which was shown conclusively to have been the property of Mr. Heitlauf. Harvey separated from his companions upon abandonment of the car, whilst Edwards and the girl remained together, retreating to a woodland. When apprehended, Edwards requested the arresting officer to shoot him and the girl, saying they would be willing to die together, and that he (Edwards) had sealed his doom in Kentucky approximately a week previous to the arrest. The officers searched the prisoners and the car, after which they drove the prisoners to the jail, wherein they were confined. A pin identified as the property of Mr. Heitlauf was found in the pocketbook of the girl. A pistol was found lying on the ground where Edwards was arrested; a holster and another pistol were found in the car. Other items of personal property, indubitably proven to have been owned by Mr. Heitlauf, were found in the automobile and the pockets of the prisoners. After they had been confined approximately two hours, the prisoners were asked if they cared to make a statement. Both Edwards and Harvey said they did; whereupon each, without the hearing of the other, confessed that they had kidnapped Mr. Heitlauf, forcing him to drive from Louisville toward Elizabethtown. A short distance out of Louisville they stopped, and required Mr. Heitlauf to alight from the automobile. Harvey gagged Heitlauf, and compelled him to walk to the rear of the car and off the road. Harvey's confession showed that he then tied the handerchiefs around the victim's neck, strangling him; whereupon he "clipped" him on the head and left him by the side of the road. Both confessions related that Edwards remained at the car while the murder was being committed by Harvey. Each confession related that Harvey and Edwards then returned to Louisville in Heitlauf's car; went to Wilma Haney's mother's home, and there were joined by Wilma; whereupon all departed for Florida in the stolen car. After traveling about the State of Florida they were apprehended in Columbia County. After confessing the crime, they were removed to Kentucky, jointly indicted for the murder of Heitlauf, and tried separately in Jefferson County. Edwards was convicted and sentenced to die in the electric chair for his part in the commission of the crime. Harvey did not appear as a witness at the trial, nor was his confession introduced; nevertheless, we have stated the substance of a portion of his confession, because it is necessary to a consideration of the most serious ground of the complaint that appellant did not receive a fair and impartial trial.

Many alleged errors are cited in support of appellant's contention that he did not receive a fair trial; the first of which is the contention that there was no competent evidence that the homicide was committed in Jefferson County, Kentucky. Edwards' statement in his confession that the victim was apprehended in Louisville, after which they drove out the Dixie Highway towards Elizabethtown, coupled with the evidence that the body was found on the road between Louisville and Elizabethtown at a point in Jefferson County, was sufficient evidence, uncontradicted as it was, to prove venue. Pictures of the deceased at the scene of the crime were exhibited to the jury, over the objection of appellant. The officer taking the pictures arrived at the scene several minutes after the body was found by other persons. He testified that the body had not been moved at the time the pictures were made. Of course, this...