Fugate v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 21 May 1943 |
| Citation | 171 S.W.2d 1020,294 Ky. 410 |
| Parties | FUGATE v. COMMONWEALTH. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Perry County; Roy Helm, Judge.
Marcellas Fugate was convicted of hog stealing, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Dennis Wooton and Vernon Faulkner, both of Hazard, for appellant.
Hubert Meredith, Atty. Gen., and Arthur T. Iler, Asst. Atty. Gen for appellee.
The appellant, Marcellas Fugate, was indicted jointly with his wife, Laura Fugate, his sister-in-law, Lottie Fugate, his son-in-law, Sherman Dobson, and Mack Williams on a charge of hog stealing. On a separate trial the appellant was convicted and sentenced to two years in the penitentiary. On this appeal it is contended 1) that incompetent evidence was admitted and 2) that when the incompetent evidence is eliminated the evidence was insufficient to justify a submission to the jury because there was no evidence corroborating the testimony of an accomplice, Lottie Fugate.
A hog was stolen from Silas Holliday on the night of March 29 1942. Holliday and a neighbor found the hog hide about one-eighth of a mile from Holliday's home. Acting on information he had received Holliday procured a search warrant for the homes of the appellant, Lottie Fugate and another person. A deputy sheriff, acting under this search warrant, searched the home of Lottie Fugate and then the home of appellant. He testified he received certain information (without detailing it) from Lottie Fugate, pursuant to which he arrested appellant. Before arresting appellant, however, he searched his home and found some fresh pork. After the arrest other officers found about two-thirds of a freshly killed and skinned hog in a burlap sack concealed among the branches of a tree and suspended from a branch over a creek. This was at a point about fifty yards up the creek from the house. The carcass was approximately the size of the stolen hog. The trial court ruled that the search warrant was issued without probable cause and refused to permit its introduction in evidence as a basis for the search but nevertheless admitted the evidence obtained on the search. This is the incompetent evidence to which appellant's complaint is addressed.
Lottie Fugate testified for the Commonwealth in substance as follows: On the night in question the appellant and his wife came by her home and she went with them to find appellant's son, Fred, and, after considerable roaming around, they found him. Lottie, appellant and his wife appellant's son, Fred, Sherman Dobson and Mack Williams, on the way back to Lottie's home, stopped at a point about one-fourth mile from Holliday's home. Fred and Mack Williams went on to Lottie's home. Dobson said to appellant, "Let's go get us a chicken before we go home". He and appellant left the two women, going in the direction of Holliday's home. The two women waited for them. When they came back Dobson was carrying a sack of hog meat. The appellant's wife told them they would get into trouble and they both remarked several times, "When a man is going to be mean, let him be mean". The four went on to Lottie's home and some of the meat was left there. Dobson, who lived with appellant, left with the remainder of the meat and later the appellant and his wife left.
Appellant's version is that he and his wife were out with Lottie and the others on the night in question but left the others and returned home; that Dobson and Williams later came to his home with hog meat in a sack and wanted to sell it to him but he refused to buy it when they refused to tell where they got it. He says the pork found in his home when he was arrested was bought at a store by his daughter and that he knew nothing about the meat hidden in the trees. His wife and two daughters confirm him in his testimony.
The mere statement of the substance of the evidence discloses that it was sufficient to sustain the verdict if the evidence as to the finding of the meat in appellant's home and hidden in the trees was competent. If the jury believed Lottie Fugate's testimony, as they had a right to do, no other verdict than guilty could have reasonably been reached.
Conceding arguendo, that Lottie Fugate was an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. United States
...protection of barbed-wire fences, they could thus employ aliens illegally in the country and aid law violations." 5 Fugate v. Commonwealth, 294 Ky. 410, 171 S.W.2d 1020, 1021; Mullins v. Commonwealth, 220 Ky. 656, 295 S.W. 987; Childers v. Commonwealth, 198 Ky. 848, 250 S.W. 106, 107; Cotto......
-
Dunn v. Commonwealth
...the limits of the curtilage of a home); Richardson v. Commonwealth, 205 Ky. 434, 266 S.W. 1 (1924) (same); Fugate v. Commonwealth, 294 Ky. 410, 171 S.W.2d 1020 (1943), overruled in part on other grounds by Hay v. Commonwealth, 432 S.W.2d 641 (Ky.1968); Maddox v. Commonwealth, 503 S.W.2d 481......
-
Short v. Com.
...Ky., 471 S.W.2d 7 (1971); his right against unreasonable search and seizure, Kentucky Constitution Section 10, Fugate v. Commonwealth, 294 Ky. 410, 171 S.W.2d 1020 (1943), Hall v. Commonwealth, Ky., 261 S.W.2d 677 (1953); his right to counsel, Kentucky Constitution Section 11, Carson v. Com......
-
State v. Gillingham, 31057.
... ... pasture' or extend beyond the curtilage, State v ... Noah, 150 Wash. 187, 272 P. 729, 730; Fugate v ... Commonwealth, 294 Ky. 410, 171 S.W.2d 1020; Koth v ... United States, 9 Cir., 16 F.2d 59; 47 Am.Jur. 513, ... Searches and ... ...