Hamilton v. Com.
| Decision Date | 20 March 1979 |
| Citation | 580 S.W.2d 208 |
| Parties | Larry Wayne HAMILTON, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Clem & Sellars, Lexington, for appellant.
Robert F. Stephens, Atty. Gen., Martin Glazer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.
On February 27, 1978, the appellant, Larry Wayne Hamilton, along with Wendell M. Rabbitto and Charles R. Morse, was indicted by the Fayette County Grand Jury for the December 28, 1977, robbery of the Ollie's Trolley restaurant in Lexington, Kentucky. They were tried jointly and each was found guilty of first-degree robbery. Appellant was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment.
On this appeal, the appellant presents three issues, as follows:
"A. The trial court was clearly erroneous in admitting into evidence the appellant's alleged confession.
B. The trial court erroneously failed to either admonish the jury that they should disregard the appellant's alleged confession unless they believed beyond a reasonable doubt that it was voluntarily given or to so instruct.
C. The appellant is entitled to a new trial, because he received ineffective assistance of counsel in the trial court."
The appellant is charged with entering the Ollie's Trolley restaurant, at approximately 3:30 p. m., wearing a halloween mask and flourishing a 32-caliber revolver. Earlier in the day the appellant, Rabbitto, and Morse were seen together and were overheard discussing robbing the Ollie's Trolley restaurant. The restaurant clerk, Vickie Campbell, who was alone in the restaurant at the time of the robbery, upon seeing the robber flourishing his gun, filled a bank deposit bag with $70 to $80. The thief took the money and ran outside to an awaiting automobile occupied by one of his co-indictees. Persons in the neighboring florist shop witnessed the robbery and were able to take pictures of the robbery while it was in progress. The pictures illustrate: (1) the getaway car, which the evidence disclosed belongs to Rabbitto or his wife; (2) the robber standing outside of the car talking to Rabbitto, who was sitting in the driver's seat; and (3) the robber as he ran from the restaurant to the car. He was wearing a long dark coat and striped tennis shoes. The evidence further reflects that appellant's co-indictee Rabbitto was heard to say, "We just pulled a job, we have the car hid and we will be home after dark." The appellant and Rabbitto had spent a large part of the day together at the "Rack and Cue," a local pool parlor, and also for a big part of the day they had just ridden around town.
Appellant's contention that the trial court was clearly erroneous in admitting into evidence the appellant's alleged confession must be measured by the record as a whole.
In the appellant's brief, it is written: "The issue in this case is not whether Hamilton was advised of his rights; the issue is whether he understood his rights and made a knowing and intelligent waiver of them." Counsel for appellant correctly states the criteria by which the issue is to be measured. The confession attributed to the appellant consists of five words, "He made me do it." The appellant did not deny making such a statement, nor did he admit having made it. There is nothing in the record which indicates to whom the "he" refers.
Following his arrest, the appellant was advised of his constitutional rights and was interrogated by Detective Alan Ernest. The product of this in-custody interrogation was the statement made by the appellant that "He made me do it." At the time the case was called for trial, counsel for appellant moved the court to suppress this alleged confession. The court held that it was proper to admit the confession and denied the motion to suppress. In support of his motion, the appellant contended that at the time the statement was purported to have been made he was under the influence of alcohol and drugs; that he did not have control of his faculties; that he had been without sleep for three days; and that he did not remember having any such conversation with Detective Ernest, but did remember talking to some detective about something. The appellant did recall many things that happened to him and things said by him prior to the robbery and subsequent thereto, but he had very little recall, if any, of what happened or what he said at the time of his interrogation. Detective Ernest stated that the appellant was able to understand his rights when read to him and that, although he was under the influence of some drug or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harper v. Com.
...to go on. RCr 9.78 provides that the ruling of the trial court is conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. Hamilton v. Commonwealth, Ky., 580 S.W.2d 208 (1979). Harper has made no effort to demonstrate that the ruling is clearly erroneous. In the absence of any showing to the contra......
-
Williams v. Commonwealth
...do not necessarily (if at all) indicate that an intoxicated person did not know what he was saying when he said it.Hamilton v. Commonwealth, 580 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Ky. 1979) (quoting Britt v. Commonwealth, 512 S.W.2d 496 (Ky. 1974)). The trial court made detailed findings regarding Williams's......
-
Crane v. Com., 84-SC-407-MR
...the jury to consider voluntariness as a threshold to be crossed before giving any consideration to the confession. In Hamilton v. Commonwealth, Ky., 580 S.W.2d 208 (1979), we "The effect of RCr 9.78 is to obviate the procedural requirement of submitting the issue of voluntariness of a confe......
-
Wiseman v. Com.
...trial court not having been afforded the opportunity to consider this issue, it may not be considered by this court. Hamilton v. Commonwealth, Ky., 580 S.W.2d 208 (1979). The appellant argues that he was denied a fair trial when the trial judge failed to instruct the jury that if it had a r......