Rowe v. Com.
| Decision Date | 11 June 1954 |
| Citation | 269 S.W.2d 247 |
| Parties | ROWE v. COMMONWEALTH. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Lewis A. White, Mt. Sterling, for appellant.
J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Zeb A. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
On an indictment charging her with malicious cutting and wounding of Kenneth Colliver with intent to kill, appellant, Della R. Rowe, was convicted of cutting and wounding him in sudden affray and her punishment fixed at a fine of $250 and confinement in jail for six months. She assigns two grounds for reversal of the judgment: 1. Misconduct of the Commonwealth Attorney; 2. the court abused its discretion in not granting her a continuance because of the absence of an eyewitness. Since the first ground is meritorious, it will not be necessary to consider the second, as we presume that on another trial this witness will be present.
According to the prosecuting witness, Colliver and Cecil Rowe, a brother of appellant, became involved in a brawl in a beer saloon in Mt. Sterling and were ejected therefrom. Appellant, her brothers and Oder Walsh followed them out into the street. The two Rowe men and Colliver started fighting; they separated and all drew knives. Colliver retreated across the street, followed by the two Rowes and Walsh. It was then that Colliver claimed he was cut by appellant. Her defense is she did not cut Colliver; that she had no knife and was trying to separate Walsh and Colliver at the time of the cutting. Appellant is corroborated by her two brothers.
The misconduct charged against the Commonwealth Attorney is that on cross-examination of appellant he exhibited to the jury an unusually vicious-looking knife and asked her if it was her knife, when he knew it was not and made no effort to prove it was or to connect appellant in any way with the knife.
The incident happened in this manner. While the Commonwealth was cross-examining appellant, a local cab driver walked into the courtroom and was escorted to the jury room by the sheriff within the view of the jury. The Commonwealth Attorney then asked for a recess to confer with an important witness. A few minutes later the Commonwealth Attorney returned from the jury room, arose from the counsel table with this knife in his hand, advanced in front of the jury toward appellant, showing her the knife and asked if it was hers. She immediately said it was not her knife and that she had never seen it before. The Commonwealth Attorney then opened the long, dangerous-looking blade and a fish scaler and asked appellant if that was not her knife. She again denied it. He asked, 'Is this the instrument with which you were goint to do the reaming you testified about?' Appellant again answered him in the negative, saying she had never before seen the knife.
The Commonwealth Attorney made no effort to formally introduce the knife in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hodge v. Com., No. 1996-SC-1085-MR.
...insinuation was made that they belonged to Appellant or his accomplices, or that they were used in the murders. Compare Rowe v. Commonwealth, Ky., 269 S.W.2d 247 (1954). The pillows through which gunshots had been fired were relevant and admissible to show the execution-style manner in whic......
-
Com. v. Cherry
...States, 295 U.S. 78 [55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314] (1935); People v. Talle, 111 Cal.App.2d 650, 245 P.2d 633 (1952); Rowe v. Commonwealth, 269 S.W.2d 247 (Ky.1954). Of course, a prosecutor must be free to present his arguments with logical force and vigor. 'But, while he may strike hard blow......
-
Com. v. Green
...States, 295 U.S. 78[, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314] (1935); People v. Talle, 111 Cal.App.2d 650, 245 P.2d 633 (1952); Rowe v. Commonwealth, 269 S.W.2d 247 (Ky.1954). Of course, a prosecutor must be free to present his arguments with logical force and vigor. 'But, while he may strike hard blo......
-
Bowler v. Com.
...376 S.W.2d 526 (1964) (seven questions); Rollyson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 320 S.W.2d 800 (1959) (two improper questions); Rowe v. Commonwealth, Ky., 269 S.W.2d 247 (1954) (three questions). These cases set forth the basic rule of fairness that the prosecution cannot deliberately inject into t......