Stallard v. Com.

Decision Date04 October 1968
Citation432 S.W.2d 401
PartiesGeorge Thomas STALLARD, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

Stuart Lyon, David Kaplan, Louisville, for appellant.

John B. Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., George F. Rabe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.

WILLIAMS, Judge.

Appellant George Thomas Stallard was convicted of the crime of operating a motor vehicle without the owner's consent and sentenced to a term of three years in the penitentiary. He seeks reversal of the judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court on the following grounds: Insufficiency of the evidence; failure to prove corpus delicti; nonconformity of the proof to the allegations in the indictment; improper voir dire examination; hearsay evidence; and prejudicial remarks of the Commonwealth Attorney in the closing argument.

The indictment charged:

'That on or about the 21st day of August 1967, in Jefferson County, Kentucky, the above named defendant operated a Honda Motorcycle belonging to Edmond Doolin without his knowledge and consent.'

The evidence was that a motorcycle had been stolen from Edmond Doolin, and that appellant was apprehended riding a motorcycle which was identified by Doolin as the one stolen from him. Identification was made by comparison of registration numbers on the registration certificate with the registration numbers on the motorcycle.

In 1 Wharton, Criminal Law and Procedure, pp. 143--144 (1957), it is stated:

'The phrase 'corpus delicti' means literally the body of the transgression charged, the essence of the crime or offense committed. To establish corpus delicti it is necessary to show the commission of a particular act and its commission by unlawful means.

'The proof of corpus delicti does not includes proof as to the identity of the wrongdoer, nor proof that the defendant was the wrongdoer.'

The Commonwealth proved that Doolin's motorcycle was stolen and that appellant was arrested while in possession of a motorcycle identified by Doolin as his. Corpus delicti was that appellant was operating the proof was that appellant was operating the identified motorcycle without the knowledge and consent of Doolin, which conformed to the allegations of the indictment. Once the Commonwealth proved the motorcycle had been stolen, it was incumbent upon appellant to show that he lawfully came into possession of the motorcycle. His failure to make such a showing is sufficient cause to submit the case to the jury and is sufficient...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Com. v. Porter
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • 17 February 1983
    ...as entry of vehicle "knowingly and without authority"); Snodgrass v. State, 395 N.E.2d 816, 820 (Ind.App.1979); Stallard v. Commonwealth, 432 S.W.2d 401, 402 (Ky.1968) (motorcycle); In re C.D.L., 306 N.W.2d 819, 820 (Minn.1981) (moped); State v. White, 541 S.W.2d 714 (Mo.App.1976); Commonwe......
  • Stewart v. Cowan
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 7 January 1976
    ...State relies upon for the proposition that testimony concerning the method of police investigation may be admitted is Stallard v. Commonwealth, 432 S.W.2d 401 (Ky.1968). In that case defendant appealed from a conviction of operating a motor vehicle without the owner's consent. The Kentucky ......
  • Bussey v. Com.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • 18 October 1990
    ...insofar as it related to the investigation be later conducted. Manz v. Commonwealth, Ky., 257 S.W.2d 581 (1953); See Stallard v. Commonwealth, Ky., 432 S.W.2d 401 (1968). In 1988, a majority of this Court in Sanborn v. Commonwealth, Ky., 754 S.W.2d 534 (1988) concluded that an officer could......
  • Taylor v. Com.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • 23 October 1970
    ...is not required. See Caldwell v. Commonwealth, Ky., 351 S.W.2d 867; Commonwealth v. Harrison, 241 Ky. 88, 43 S.W.2d 354; Stallard v. Commonwealth, Ky., 432 S.W.2d 401. As their third contention the appellants argue that the trial court erred in submitting the case to the jury on the issue o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT