Sizemore v. Com.
| Decision Date | 01 November 1957 |
| Citation | 306 S.W.2d 832 |
| Parties | Wallace SIZEMORE, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
William J. Weaver, London, for appellant.
Jo M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., Edward L. Fossett, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant, Wallace Sizemore, was found guilty of killing Vincent Gentry, and was sentenced to 21 years' confinement in prison.
On this appeal several grounds for reversal are advanced. We have found little merit in them, with the exception of one which arose out of the failure of two jurors to respond to questions propounded, by counsel for appellant, on voir dire examination.
This happened. The members of the panel, which included Dave Gabbard and C. P. Wilson, were asked if they had ever been interested in the prosecution of a case in which a person had been killed. Neither prospective juror indicated that he had been interested in such a case. Both were accepted as jurors.
After the verdict of 'guilty' and in support of a motion for a new trial, appellant filed an affidavit which set forth facts which might indicate that they had been interested in a case where a person had been killed in that Gabbard was the uncle, and Wilson was the brother-in-law of Mary Elaine Gabbard Boehmer, who had been killed by her husband in August, 1956. The husband had been tried and convicted.
The commonwealth filed affidavits of Gabbard and of Wilson. Gabbard admitted that his niece had been killed by her husband. He stated he did not attend the trial of John Boehmer, her husband, and further 'he had no interest in the prosecution and complaint against Boehmer whatever, that he never at any time has ever been interested in the prosecution of any case in the Commonwealth of Kentucky; that he is not related, as far as he knows, to Vincent Gentry, the deceased, and as a member of said jury he tried the case according to law and the evidence * * *.' Wilson admitted that he married the sister of Mary Boehmer, and stated 'he had no interest in the prosecution of her husband, John Bernard Boehmer, whatever and that the said misfortune of his sister-in-law having been killed by her husband, did not influence him upon the trial of this case.' He stated he did not aid in employment of counsel for the purpose of prosecuting John Boehmer, who entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to serve two years in prison. He stated, however, that the body of Mary Boehmer was brought to his home and that numerous persons visited his home before her burial.
The purpose of voir dire examination is to determine whether a juror possesses necessary qualifications, whether he has prejudged the case, and whether his mind is free from prejudice or bias so as to enable a party to ascertain whether a cause for challenge exists, and to ascertain whether it is expedient to exercise the right of peremptory challenge. 50 C.J.S. Juries, § 273.
In ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fuel Transport, Inc. v. Gibson, No. 2008-CA-000969-MR (Ky. App. 9/25/2009)
...determining whether a juror has the necessary qualifications, has prejudged a case, or is free from prejudice or bias. Sizemore v. Com., 306 S.W.2d 832, 834 (Ky. 1957) (citing 50 C.J.S. Juries, § 273). Merely having a similar background is not enough to justify excusing a juror for cause. S......
-
Woodford v. Com.
...jurors and of two replacements collectively. Appellant relies on the statement of purpose of voir dire made in Sizemore v. Commonwealth, Ky., 306 S.W.2d 832, and upon statements in Apkins v. Commonwealth, 148 Ky. 662, 147 S.W. 376; Olympic Realty Company v. Kamer, 283 Ky. 432, 141 S.W.2d 29......
-
Edmondson v. Commonwealth, 2016-SC-000427-DG.
...cause for challenge exists and to ascertain whether it is expedient to exercise the right of peremptory challenge." Sizemore v. Commonwealth , 306 S.W.2d 832, 834 (Ky. 1957). Our predecessor Court aptly explained this principle in Drury v. Franke , 247 Ky. 758, 57 S.W.2d 969, 984 (Ky. 1933)......
-
Com., Dept. of Highways v. Ginsburg
...cause will not '* * * in all cases result in an illegal verdict.' Another quote from Olympic Realty was discussed in Sizemore v. Commonwealth, Ky., 306 S.W.2d 832 (1957). A majority of the members of this court are now of the opinion that the statement above quoted from Olympic Realty is ov......