Hodge v. Com.
| Citation | 287 S.W.2d 426 |
| Parties | Vernon HODGE, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 17 February 1956 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky) |
Burlyn Pike, Shepherdsville, for appellant.
J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Zeb A. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
WADDILL, Commissioner.
The appellant, Vernon Hodge, was indicted for the offense of voluntary manslaughter arising out of an automobile accident which occurred on May 24, 1952. Upon trial, a jury convicted him of involuntary manslaughter and fixed his punishment at six months in jail and a fine of $2,000. He has filed motion for appeal from the judgment entered on the verdict, and assigns as grounds for reversal that the court erred: (1) In overruling his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal; and (2) in admitting incompetent evidence against him.
The accident in question occurred on a straightway portion of public highway No. 61, at approximately 3:00 P.M., when the automobile operated by the appellant collided head-on with the car driven by Emogene Sadler. As a result thereof, Miss Sadler was killed; her two companions were injured; and a passenger in appellant's car was fatally injured.
The Commonwealth undertook to prove by its evidence that prior to and at the time of the collision, appellant was driving on the wrong side of the road at a speed of from 70 to 80 miles an hour, and that the collision and consequent death of Miss Sadler were due to appellant's gross and reckless carelessness in operating his automobile. On the other side of the case, appellant claims that while he was driving on his right side of the road at a rate of speed not exceeding 50 miles an hour, the car operated by Miss Sadler approached him on the wrong side of the road and the two cars crashed head-on before either party could avert the collision. He admits that he was following a car operated by his brother, but denies that he was attempting to pass his brother's car at the time the accident happened as was testified to by a witness for the prosecution. There was also an issue as to whether or not the appellant had consumed some beer prior to the accident. Both parties produced witnesses whose testimony tended to corroborate the contention of the party for whom they were testifying.
We may summarily dispose of ground No. 1, urged by the appellant, by stating it has no basis, for if the jury believed the evidence introduced in behalf of the Commonwealth, the appellant was guilty of the offense for which he was tried and convicted. We now consider the contentions asserted in support of ground No. 2.
He asserts by this ground that the court erred in admitting incompetent evidence against him. This consists of three items: First, the evidence of state trooper, Norman Locke, a witness for the prosecution, who, over appellant's objections, was permitted to read to the jury the entire contents of his official report of the accident. This report contained a comprehensive diagram based upon the trooper's conclusion as to the manner in which the accident had occurred; a detailed statement of the facts concerning how the collision occurred as related by Miss Eva Mae Jaggers, a passenger in Miss Sadler's car; and other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dickerson v. Commonwealth
...as Detective Hamilton's testimony here, is no less hearsay than the interviewees' statements on which it is based. Cf. Hodge v. Commonwealth, 287 S.W.2d 426, 428 (Ky.1956) (holding opinions and conclusions of state trooper in official auto-accident report were "pure hearsay").And this under......
-
Barnett v. Com.
...business. There was no error as to the 'intimate relations' testimony because of the failure to object to its introduction. Hodge v. Commonwealth, Ky., 287 S.W.2d 426; Karl v. Commonwealth, Ky., 288 S.W.2d 628. It was not the duty of the court to admonish the jury as to the purpose of the e......
-
Winn v. Com.
...(3rd Ed.) § 15, p. 304, et seq.; Meadors v. Com., 281 Ky. 622, 136 S.W.2d 1066; White v. Com., 292 Ky. 416, 166 S.W.2d 873; Hodge v. Com., Ky., 287 S.W.2d 426. Also this is the rule followed in the federal courts. Walder v. U. S., 347 U.S. 62, 74 S.Ct. 354, 98 L.Ed. Appellant further insist......
-
Kotarek v. Commonwealth
...counsel approached the bench to add another prong to his argument for excluding the police report—this time citing Hodge v. Commonwealth, 287 S.W.2d 426 (Ky. 1956), a vehicular manslaughter case in which admission of an entire police report was held to be prejudicial error because under the......