Grapes v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 25 April 1924
• Citation: Grapes v. Commonwealth, 202 Ky. 760, 261 S.W. 271 (Ky. Ct. App. 1924)
• Parties: GRAPES v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

261 S.W. 271

202 Ky. 760

GRAPES v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 25, 1924

Appeal from Circuit Court, Nelson County.

Robert Grapes was convicted of robbery, and appeals.Affirmed.

Osso W Stanley, of Bardstown, and Frank A. Douglass, of Louisville for appellant.

Gardner K. Byers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.

CLARKE J.

The appellant, Robert Grapes, was jointly indicted with Jimmy Ryan and J. A. Fleisher upon the charge of robbing one R. A Shawley of $240 on the ______ day of February, 1923.Upon his separate trial, appellant was convicted, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for four years.

For reversal he contends that the court erred in overruling his demurrer to the indictment, in the admission of incompetent evidence, that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, and that the argument to the jury by counsel for the commonwealth was improper.

The indictment is criticised as being vague, uncertain, and unintelligible, but it definitely and certainly charges the appellant and his two codefendants with every essential element of the crime of robbery, and is indefinite only in that, after charging the defendants jointly with the commission of the crime, it alleges that one of the three actually took the money from Shawley, and that the other two were present aiding, assisting, and abetting him in so doing and that the grand jury did not know which was the principal and which the aiders and abettors.

Criticism of the indictment is doubtless based upon this latter fact.This fact, however, did not render the indictment demurrable.It is the law in this commonwealth that the principal actor, aiders and abettors, and accessories before the fact, are all parties in the first degree and are equally guilty, and may be so accused and convicted.Commonwealth v. Hargis,124 Ky. 356, 99 S.W. 348, 30 Ky. Law Rep. 510;Howard v. Commonwealth,110 Ky. 356, 61 S.W. 756, 22 Ky. Law Rep. 1845;Ratliff v. Commonwealth,182 Ky. 246, 206 S.W. 497;Kentucky Statutes, § 1128.

Complaint is made in the brief for appellant that the commonwealth repeatedly asked, and witnesses were permitted to answer questions with reference to his codefendants Ryan and Fleisher; but, as the parties were acting together, the evidence could not have been separated.However, the court sustained every objection made by defendant during the trial save one, and in that instance...