Jones v. Com.
| Decision Date | 01 May 1970 |
| Citation | 453 S.W.2d 564 |
| Parties | H. Ray JONES, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
R. B. Bertram, E. G. Bertram, Jr., Bertram & Bertram, Monticello, Harlan Judd, Burkesville, for appellant.
John B. Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., James H. Barr, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.
The defendant, H. Ray Jones, a law enforcement officer for thirteen years and a former sheriff of Wayne County, appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict that found him guilty of the crime of grand larceny. (KRS 433.220). The punishment fixed was a term of four years in the state penitentiary. The defendant contends that he was entitled to a directed verdict of not guilty because the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to make a submissible jury case. He also asserts that the portion of the verdict of the jury which determined the extent of punishment 'is so excessive as to strike the mind at first blush as to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice.' His final contention is error in the instructions given to the jury by the trial judge, but this ground is actually completely dependent upon the validity of his previous contention concerning lack of a submissible case. Our review convinces us that we are unauthorized to disturb the result. Therefore, we affirm the judgment.
In early October, 1968, ten head to cattle were stolen from the farm of Noel Harvey, located in Adair County, Kentucky. About two weeks following the discovery of the theft, two of the cattle were located and identified by the owner at the stockyard in Edmonton, Kentucky. Two more were found in the possession of a farmer in Pulaski County, Kentucky, and two more were found on Gholson Dean's farm in Wayne County, Kentucky. The remaining four stolen cattle were reportedly sold and shipped to a feed lot in the State of Illinois. It is uncontradicted that the defendant, shortly after the theft, was in possession of all of the stolen cattle and that he sold them. The evidence for the prosecution also established that a black truck with a white tail gate was observed at the scene of the crime close to the time of the theft of the cattle. When defendant was first contacted by Harvey, the owner of the stolen cattle, and Lloyd, a state police detective, the defendant was in a black truck with a white tail gate.
The defendant explained his possession of the stolen cattle: He said that he purchased them at a roadside park from a man whose name he thought was Loy. According to defendant, he made subsequent investigation and discovered that the man who sold him the cattle was Hildreth Young. The defendant initiated criminal prosecution of Young in Wayne County, Kentucky. The present record does not show the disposition made in those proceedings except that Young was indicted.
Defendant also explained that the truck which he drove was red in color and did not have a white tail gate. The black truck in which he was observed by Harvey and Lloyd belonged to his neighbor. Defendant stated that the man who sold him the stolen cattle at the roadside park required payment in cash. The defendant testified the cattle were brought to his farm by the man whom he later learned was Young. Defendant paid in cash that he happened to have available at his home. The purchase price was $1,200.
In rebuttal, the prosecution introduced Hildreth Young whom defendant accused of selling him the cattle. Young denied any connection with the transaction; he stated that he owned a new red truck; that he had never seen the defendant before; that at the time of the theft of Harvey's cattle he was working in Louisville driving a tractor-trailer truck and staying in the place of his employment at night. Young was corroborated by his foreman concerning his employment and working hours. Young admitted that he had been convicted of cattle rustling five years earlier. The jury chose to disbelieve defendant's explanation of his possession and sale of the stolen cattle.
Although the briefs discuss a purported issue concerning proper venue of the proceedings, we find no problem of venue in this case. KRS 452.580 fixes venue in the instance where larceny is committed in one county and the stolen property is brought into...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Moulton
...Jennings, 10 Cal.App.3d 712, 89 Cal.Rptr. 268 (1970); State v. Bassett, 86 Idaho 277, 284-85, 385 P.2d 246, 250 (1963); Jones v. Commonwealth, 453 S.W.2d 564 (Ky.1970); 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 185(18), at 480 We therefore sustain the State's appeal of the dismissal of the three charges of ......
-
Howe v. Com.
...that the possessor is guilty of the theft, which presumption '* * * may be rebutted by a satisfactory explanation * * *'. Jones v. Com., Ky., 453 S.W.2d 564 (1970). He insists that his explanation was so convincing and satisfactory that the trial court erred in not sustaining his motion for......
-
Jones v. Com.
...and place of the murder is an elementary proposition. Cf. Ralya v. Commonwealth, Ky., 495 S.W.2d 506, 507 (1973); Jones v. Commonwealth, Ky., 453 S.W.2d 564, 565-566 (1970). The robbery having been the obvious purpose of the murder, it follows necessarily that if the evidence was enough to ......
-
Yates v. Com.
...to sustain the verdict and that the issue was properly submitted to the jury. Fleming v. Commonwealth, Ky., 419 S.W.2d 754; Jones v. Commonwealth, Ky., 453 S.W.2d 564; Fible v. Commonwealth, Ky., 461 S.W.2d 553; Howe v. Commonwealth, Ky., 462 S.W.2d Appellant's second ground of appeal is th......