Head v. Com.
| Decision Date | 14 February 1958 |
| Parties | Oscar HEAD, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Joe S. Feather, Garrett Teague, Jr., Williamsburg, for appellant.
Jo M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., William F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Oscar Head, Elmer Alsip, Raymond Eaton, Charles Jones, and Carl Jones were jointly indicted for armed assault with intent to rob. KRS 433.150. Head and Alsip were convicted on separate trials and each received a sentence of twenty-one years' confinement. Each has prosecuted an appeal. See Alsip v. Commonwealth, Ky., 310 S.W.2d 283.
The decisive question is whether Mary Sylvia Inman was an accomplice under Criminal Code of Practice Section 241. The question was presented by a motion for a directed verdict of not guilty and by submission to the jury under an instruction. The Inman girl's testimony corroborated the testimony of Raymond Eaton, who was jointly charged in the indictment.
The indictment charges that Wilbert G. Forester was robbed of a 1951 Nash car and other personal property of the value of $800 or more. Forester was in the military service. While en route from his home to his base, he parked alongside the highway to sleep. About 2 o'clock in the morning of April 5, 1957, he was awakened by two men who requested a ride to Knoxville. Forester advised that he had no available space and they left. He went back to sleep. About two hours later, he was aroused again by two men who requested a ride to Knoxville. Forester said: The two men took his car and belongings.
Mary Sylvia Inman, aged sixteen years, was with Raymond Eaton, Ernest Vanover, Charles and Carl Jones at the Ever-Ready Cafe in Corbin on the night of April 4, 1957. After exhausting their supply of moonshine, they departed in Eaton's car to take Vanover home. He had passed out. On the way, they saw a car parked beside the highway. Raymond Eaton, who testified for the prosecution, said that he and Carl Jones talked with the occupant of the car.
After leaving the parked car, the group took Vanover home and then sought more moonshine. About 3 o'clock in the morning they stopped at a house where they found appellant Oscar 'Hoss' Head, Elmer Alsip, Lula Bunch, and May Bunch, her daughter. The group, aided by more moonshine, engaged in further conviviality. The contemplated robbery of the parked car was discussed and plans were formulated by Head, Eaton, Alsip, and Carl Jones in the presence of the Inman girl. Eaton testified to taking Head and Alsip, with a shotgun, to the vicinity of the parked car, and gave other details of the robbery. He said Head and Alsip expressed an intention to commit the robbery and afterward told him they had done it.
The Inman girl remained at the house when appellant, Alsip, and Eaton departed. She was there when they returned. She testified to hearing the conversation concerning the proposed robbery, but no witness said that she took any part in it or was implicated in any way. She was several miles away when robbery was committed. There is no showing that she aided, assisted, or encouraged anyond in the commission of the crime. Her testimony corroborated the testimony of Eaton's as to the participation of appellant and Alsip in the crime. Her presence in and association with the group prior to the offense is the only basis for the contention that she was an accomplice.
An accomplic has been defined as 'one who knowingly, voluntarily, and with common intent, unites with the principal in the perpetration of the crime, either by being present and joining in the criminal act, by aiding and abetting in its commission, or, if not present, by advising and encouraging the performance of the act.' Magruder v. Commonwealth, Ky., 281 S.W.2d 716, 719; Rouse v. Commonwealth, Ky., 303 S.W.2d 265; Chaney v. Commonwealth, Ky., 307 S.W.2d 770. To determine whether one is an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lisenby v. State
...association with the accused or mere presence at the time of the commission of the offense does not make one an accomplice. Head v. Commonwealth, Ky., 310 S.W.2d 285. In the Oregon case of State v. Walters, 105 Or. 662, 209 P. 349, two soldiers, Walters and Tillman, while A.W.O.L., committe......
-
Caine v. Com.
...there is no reasonable doubt of an accomplice relationship existing the court should decide the issue. We stated in Head v. Commonwealth, Ky., 310 S.W.2d 285 (1958), that where the evidence creates a doubt whether a person is an accomplice, it is a question for the jury. It seems to us that......
-
Eisner v. Com.
...to prosecution for the identical offense of which the accused is being tried. Warren v. Commonwealth, Ky., 333 S.W.2d 766; Head v. Commonwealth, Ky., 310 S.W.2d 285. It follows, therefore, that O'Brien was an accomplice only if he could be prosecuted for engaging in The ordinary use of the ......
-
Faerber v. Com.
...prosecuting witness was an accomplice, so as to make his testimony alone insufficient on which to sustain the conviction. Head v. Commonwealth, Ky., 310 S.W.2d 285. There are two reasons why this objection is not meritorious. First, the testimony of the presecuting witness Jensen was corrob......