Riley v. Com.
| Decision Date | 08 October 1954 |
| Citation | 271 S.W.2d 882 |
| Parties | Clarence RILEY, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Earl B. Rose, Buford A. Short, Beattyville, for appellant.
J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., John B. Browning, Asst. Atty. Gen., C. E. Tyree, Beattyville, for appellee.
Appellant, Clarence Riley, was convicted of having carnal knowledge of a girl over 12 and under 16 years of age, an offense denounced by KRS 435.100(1)(b), and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for five years. He seeks to reverse the judgment on four grounds: (1) The verdict is not supported by the evidence; (2) the evidence does not conform to the averments of the indictment as to the time of the offense; (3) the verdict was reached by lot; (4) leading questions asked by the commonwealth attorney were prejudicial.
Only three witnesses testified; prosecutrix, her 13 year old sister, Marzella, and appellant. At the time of the trial prosecutrix was 16 years of age and testified she and appellant are first cousins and he had been staying in her home working for her father; that on the morning of April 9, 1952, appellant appeared with a drawn pistol in the room where she and Marzella were, ordered Marzella to leave and then forced prosecutrix to have sexual intercourse with him.
Marzella corroborated prosecutrix as to appellant having a drawn pistol, forcing the witness to leave the room and threatening to kill her if she did not. She went out as directed and did not see or hear what transpired in the room in which she left prosecutrix and appellant. In about a week after the occurrence prosecutrix reported it to her father in the presence of Marzella.
Appellant denied drawing a pistol on the two girls or threatening them, and denied having intercourse with prosecutrix. He testified he lived in their home and worked for their father until 'corn was laid by'.
The evidence was sufficient to take the case to the jury and to sustain the verdict. The established rule in this jurisdiction in this character of case is that a verdict based on the uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix will be sustained unless her story is so highly improbable as to show it to be false. Hogue v. Commonwealth, 305 Ky. 298, 203 S.W.2d 42; Bailey v. Commonwealth, 312 Ky. 764, 229 S.W.2d 767.
Appellant argues that the evidence fails to conform to the indictment. The indictment was re-referred to the grand jury and the one under which appellant was tried was returned on the tenth day of the November 1953 term of the Owsley Circuit Court and averred the crime was committed twelve months before the finding of the indictment, while the proof shows it occurred on April 9, 1952. There is no merit in this argument. The statement in an indictment as to time is not material where a felony of this character is charged, and the Commonwealth may prove the offense was committed at any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haight v. Com.
...extraordinary for an appellate court to disregard his view as to questions of candor and impartiality of a juror. Riley v. Commonwealth, Ky., 271 S.W.2d 882 (1954). On this point we accept the view expressed in United States v. Klee, 494 F.2d 394 (9th Cir.1974) (citing United States v. Goli......
-
Parsley v. Com.
...discretion of the trial judge, and his ruling will not be disturbed unless it clearly appears that the court was in error. Riley v. Commonwealth, Ky., 271 S.W.2d 882; Commonwealth v. Shelton, Ky., 248 S.W.2d 895; Pennington v. Commonwealth, 310 Ky. 265, 220 S.W.2d 556; Cottrell v. Commonwea......
-
Harris v. Stewart
...as to questions of candor and impartiality of a juror. Haight v. Commonwealth, Ky., 938 S.W.2d 243, 246 (1996), citing Riley v. Commonwealth, Ky., 271 S.W.2d 882 (1954). The judgment is All concur. 1 On October 27, 1992, a petition to adjudicate the person or persons entitled to the real pr......
-
Dobbs v. Com.
...that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that there had been no improper separation of the jury. Riley v. Commonwealth, Ky., 271 S.W.2d 882; Ford v. Commonwealth, 312 Ky. 718, 229 S.W.2d 470; Allen v. Commonwealth, 278 Ky. 396, 128 S.W.2d The further claim of misconduct ......