Iles v. Com.
| Citation | 455 S.W.2d 533 |
| Parties | Jerry ILES, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 26 June 1970 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Louis W. Gorman, Covington, for appellant.
John B. Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., John B. Browining, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.
DAVIS, Commissioner.
Jerry Iles was convicted of violating KRS 433.220, based upon evidence that he drove an automobile belonging to Clay Cain without the latter's consent. The jury fixed his punishment at confinement in the reformatory for two years.
For reversal appellant asserts that (1) error was committed by improper voir dire questioning by the Commonwealth's attorney; (2) the evidence was insufficient to submit the issue of guilt to the jury; and (3) the court failed to instruct on the whole law of the case.
An officer of the Newport Police Department stopped a vehicle in Newport about 1 a.m. on March 14, 1969. The car belonged to Clay Cain and had been stolen. The officer testified that Iles was the driver of the car. Two other persons were in the car with Iles. As Iles approached the officer the other men fled, whereupon Iles ran also. The officer pursued the other two men, finally catching and arresting one of them, Roger Dunigan.
About 11 p.m. on the same date, Iles appeared at the jail seeking to arrange bail for Dunigan. The police officer recognized him and placed him under arrest. Iles denied complicity and presented alibi testimony. The officer swore positively that Iles was the man whom he observed driving the stolen car.
The Commonwealth's attorney informed the prosecptive jurors of the permissible penalties prescribed by statute and inquired whether any of them had conscientious scruples against imposing a penitentiary sentence for auto theft, or believed the prescribed statutory range of punishment to be too severe. The veniremen remained silent. No prospective juror was excused for cause. RCr 9.38 directs that the trial court afford reasonable opportunity to the Commonwealth and the defendant to conduct voir dire examination. The questions propounded by the Commonwealth's attorney were proper. No possible prejudice is suggested by reason of these questions. Even if this had been error, which it was not, it would not be reversible error anyway. RCr 9.24.
The evidence of the police officer was sufficient to create a submissible jury issue, considering that the owner of the car testified that the car had been taken without his consent. There was no necessity...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lawson v. Com.
... ... We recognize that we labeled "proper" a similar question which was posed by the Commonwealth in ... Page 540 ... Iles v. Commonwealth. 6 The fact that a given question might be permissible does not, however, mandate the conclusion that reversible error results whenever a trial court fails to permit it — this is the very nature of discretion. In Mu'Min v. Virqinia, 7 the United States Supreme Court clarified ... ...
-
Owens v. Com.
...guilty of the offense of storehouse breaking. Some of our latest pronouncements on the subject can be found in cases like Iles v. Commonwealth, Ky., 455 S.W.2d 533, where we held that one accused of driving an automobile without the owner's consent was not entitled to an affirmative instruc......
-
Shields v. Com., 90-SC-348-MR
...guilt or innocence phase since there is no separate voir dire thereafter but before the punishment phase. As we held in Iles v. Commonwealth, Ky., 455 S.W.2d 533 (1970): The Commonwealth's attorney informed the prospective jurors of the permissible penalties prescribed by statute and inquir......