Fible v. Com.

• Decision Date: 23 October 1970
• Citation: 461 S.W.2d 553
• Parties: Joseph Reddy FIBLE, John Claude Riggs, and John Vincent Donnelly, Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

Page 553

461 S.W.2d 553

Joseph Reddy FIBLE, John Claude Riggs, and John Vincent Donnelly, Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 23, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 29, 1971.

John David Cole, Harlin, Parker, Ricketts, Lucas & English, Bowling Green, for appellants.

John B. Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., Douglas E. Johnson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.

EDWARD P. HILL, Jr., Chief Justice.

Appellants appeal from a judgment finding them guilty of cattle stealing (KRS 433.250). Two indictments were returned against appellant Joseph R. Fible, and four separate indictments were returned against appellants John V. Donnelly and John C. Riggs. The total penalties fixed by the jury for each defendant were four years. We affirm.

The indictments charged that defendants stole forty-one head of cattle from the farm of H. B. McChesney and his two sons; that the farm is located in Warren County near Bowling Green; and that they were stolen on dates between September 27, 1968, and October 13, 1968.

On this appeal the following arguments are listed in appellants' 'Table of Contents and Authorities': (1) 'The Appellants' conviction rests upon the impeached and perjured testimony of Kay Donald 'Judd' Madison, and is insufficient, as a matter of law, to sustain the judgment of the lower court'; (2) 'the trial court erred in permitting the introduction of evidence by Appellee of other crimes allegedly committed by Appellants, together with certain statements made by Appellants prior to arrest'; and (3) 'the Commonwealth's proof does not limit the instructions to which Appellants are entitled, and the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on Appellants' theory of the case.'

We address appellants' first contention that the 'impeached and perjured' testimony of Kay Donald 'Judd' Madison 'is insufficient as a matter of law, to sustain the judgment' of conviction.

True, appellants presented considerable impeaching evidence directed at Madison's testimony, but his credibility was for the jury. Buchanan v. Commonwealth, 304 Ky. 225, 200 S.W.2d 459 (1947); Johnson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 289 S.W.2d 736 (1956).

There are other circumstances tending to support the verdict, among which may be listed the suspicious manner under which the cattle were taken; the fact that appellants were neither farmers nor cattle dealers; their own admission that they paid cash for the cattle; and the further significant fact that they gave two inconsistent stories prior to the version they gave on the trial. Appellants Donnelly and Fible first stated they knew nothing of the stolen cattle. Later they stated they purchased them from a man named Starks from Tennessee whom they met at a cockfight and that the cattle were transferred to their truck at a sawmill site south of Scottsville.

The jury was not bound to believe Madison. Indeed it may not have believed him. There was other evidence aside from that of Madison sufficient to support the verdict.

It should be kept in mind that appellants admit possession of the stolen cattle. Possession alone is sufficient to support a conviction. Tinsley v. Commonwealth, Ky., 283 S.W.2d 362 (1955).

Appellants next claim error in permitting evidence of other crimes and in admitting appellants' statements or admissions made before the trial. The 'other crimes' complained of related to the voluntary statement of appellant Fible that he was attending a cockfight when he met the vanishing Tennessean. Appellant Fible is in a poor posture to complain of his own voluntary reference to a cockfight. We cannot imagine any prejudice to the other two appellants from this evidence. We find no merit in appellants' complaint of evidence of tractor deals. The reference to tractors afforded no evidence from which the jury could conclude that appellants were involved in a tractor transaction, legal or illegal. Anyway, the trial court sustained appellants' objection to this line of interrogation. No motion was made for an admonition. Therefore no prejudice resulted.

Passing to appellants' second-barrel blast, relating to the admission of the confession of Donnelly and Fible, it is sufficient to say that there was evidence by the interrogating officer that appellants were fully advised of their constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. In fact, the generous details by the Supreme Court in Miranda are so carefully followed by a great many investigating officers that they carry a card on which is listed the advice Miranda...