Roach v. Com.
Decision Date | 15 March 1974 |
Citation | 507 S.W.2d 154 |
Parties | Charles ROACH, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Anthony M. Wilhoit, Public Defender, Paul F. Isaacs, Asst. Public Defender, Frankfort, for appellant.
Ed W. Hancock, Atty. Gen., Patrick B. Kimberlin, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.
Appellant Charles Roach was found guilty of illegally selling dangerous narcotic drugs. KRS 217.731(2). He was sentenced to serve two years in the penitentiary. From a judgment entered on a jury verdict Roach appeals.
Detective William Cline, the principal witness for the Commonwealth, testified that he had purchased narcotic drugs from Roach. While Cline was on the witness stand, he had in his possession 35 pages of notes and, as he testified, he referred to some of the pages. At the close of the direct examination defense counsel requested that Cline turn over to him for examination the 35 pages of notes. The Commonwealth agreed to turn over the pages to which, it said, Cline had referred, and the court denied the motion except to that extent. Appellant, relying upon RCr 7.26, claims that the trial court committed reversible error in denying the motion. 1
Four cases discussing RCr 7.26 have been called to our attention. The earliest case is Lynch v. Commonwealth, Ky., 472 S.W.2d 263 (1971), in which we said,
In Pankey v. Commonwealth, Ky., 485 S.W.2d 513 (1972), at page 521, we noted that after a motion was made by defense counsel pursuant to RCr 7.26, he was furnished with '* * * the only signed statement of the witness in its files.' We said,
Next came Le Grande v. Commonwealth, Ky., 494 S.W.2d 726 (1973), in which 'LeGrande's counsel moved under RCr 7.26 that the notes, reports and tapes prepared by Officer McCubbin be produced for examination.' The trial court denied the motion. Thereafter, Officer Collins testified and again defense counsel made the same motion, which was denied. We reversed and pointed out that while RCr 7.24, which applies to pretrial discovery, contains an exclusion which does not authorize discovery of investigation reports made by police officers, there is no such exclusion in RCr 7.26. We noted that '* * * RCr 7.26 * * * relates to discovery, after a witness called by the commonwealth has testified, of documents or recordings relating to the subject matter of the witness' testimony.'
In Maynard v. Commonwealth, Ky., 497 S.W.2d 567 (1973), we held that RCr 7.26 applies to 'investigative reports of police officers.' In remanding the case we directed that the trial judge order the Commonwealth '* * * to produce for inspection by appellant any statement or document signed or initialled by the witness John Spellman or which purports to be a substantially verbatim statement made by him which relates to the subject matter of his testimony at the trial and which was in the possession of the Commonwealth at that time, subject to the limitations of RCr 7.26(2)(3).' We held...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Beaty v. Com.
...Ky., 31 S.W.3d 897, 905 (2000), citing McRay v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 675 S.W.2d 397, 400 (1984). See also Roach v. Commonwealth, Ky., 507 S.W.2d 154, 155 (1974); Hicks v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 805 S.W.2d 144, 149 (1990). Here, the error was Appellant claims he was prejudiced by Huskey's ......
-
Hicks v. Com.
...have altered the verdict. Failure to comply with RCr 7.26 does not require automatic and absolute reversal. See Roach v. Commonwealth, Ky., 507 S.W.2d 154 (1974); McRay v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 675 S.W.2d 397 (1984). Some prejudice must be found; otherwise, the error, if any, is harmless. ......
-
Bowman v. Com.
...472 U.S. 1027, 105 S.Ct. 3501, 87 L.Ed.2d 632 (1985); State v. Hardy, 293 N.C. 105, 235 S.E.2d 828, 842 (1977); Roach v. Commonwealth, 507 S.W.2d 154, 155 (Ky.1974). The trial court's determination of the question whether it should undertake the review of the disputed material is a discreti......
-
Weiss v. Commonwealth
...arguendo, that there was an RCr 7.26 violation, reversal would be unwarranted considering Appellant was not prejudiced. Roach v.Commonwealth, 507 S.W.2d 154 (Ky. 1974) (RCr 7.26 requires reversal only if defendant suffered prejudice). Appellant had time to review the witness's new statement......