West v. Commonwealth

Decision Date31 May 1938
PartiesWEST v. COMMONWEALTH.
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pulaski County.

Mark West was convicted of chicken stealing, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

W. R Jones, of Somerset, for appellant.

Hubert Meredith, Atty. Gen., and Wm. F. Neill, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

REES Justice.

Mark West has been convicted of the crime of chicken stealing, and sentenced to a term of one year in the state penitentiary. On this appeal he argues that the verdict is flagrantly against the evidence, and the trial court erred in admitting incompetent evidence.

In December, 1931, eighteen chickens were stolen from John Sheperd in Pulaski County. About 7 o'clock in the morning, after the chickens were stolen, Charlie Cundiff met E. H. Weddle, a deputy sheriff, on the street in Somerset and told him that two men were in an automobile parked on a side road near the pump house about one mile from Somerset. He asked Weddle to go out to the pump house and make an investigation. Accompanied by Walter G. Hines, another deputy sheriff, Weddle drove out to the point on the road where the car was parked. In the car were Mark West and Rex Walls. The car belonged to Walls. Hines testified as follows:

"This occurred, as I recall it in December; Mr. Weddle came to where I was working on a house and told me that it had been reported to him that two boys were in a car out by the pump house, and maybe we ought to go out and see if there was any trouble, or to see what they were doing out there; I don't remember just what he said, but anyway we went out to see what they were doing. As I remember he said the car had been there some time, or that was the information he had; so we went out there to where the car was; so we asked them what they were doing out there or something to that effect, and I had a little conversation with them; and while we was standing there talking, I saw some chickens in the back end of the car; so I just walked back there and raised up the back of the car; it was a roadster; so we told them we'd have to arrest them; Mr. West over there walked around the car and said there was some trouble with one of the tires, that it had too much air in it or not enough, I don't remember just what he said, anyway there was something wrong with the tire; I was on the left side of the car and he was over on the other side, and he ran off through the field. Mr. Weddle ran after this boy, and I kept the other one there at the car, I believe I had him to sit down; West went right on through the creek and Mr. Weddle stopped there and come back where I was with the other boy."

The chickens were later identified by Sheperd as the ones that had been stolen. Walls was indicted and entered a plea of guilty, and was sentenced to a term of five years' imprisonment, which he served. Appellant went to Ohio, where he remained until he was apprehended in September, 1937. He testified that he left his father's home early in the morning in question, intending to go to Somerset to take a bus to Cincinnati. Walls overtook him on the road, and asked him to get in the car. Walls had a bottle of whiskey, and he drove the car down the side road to the pump house to take a drink. Appellant claimed that he did not know the chickens were in the car until they were discovered by the officers. He explained his flight by stating that he had theretofore been convicted of a felony and had been released from Greendale Reform School on parole, and that he believed he would be returned to Greendale if arrested on the charge of chicken stealing. Walls testified that he stole the chickens during the night, and that appellant had nothing to do with the theft. Appellant was in the car in which the stolen chickens were being transported, and, on their discovery by the officers, he fled, left the state, and evaded arrest for more than five years. Flight of a person charged with crime is a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Lane v. Com.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • 25 Noviembre 1964
    ...this case has been used as precedent for the proposition that only the owner may object to a search of property. In West v. Commonwealth, 273 Ky. 779, 117 S.W.2d 998 (1938) after a chicken theft the officers approached a parked car belonging to Rex Walls, and occupied by him and Mark West. ......
  • Hellstrom v. Com., 90-SC-262-MR
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • 16 Enero 1992
    ...has waived any objection to the answer if it is responsive. 1 Wigmore, Evidence, Sec. 18, p. 344 (3rd ed.1940); See West v. Commonwealth, 273 Ky. 779, 117 S.W.2d 998 (1938).)" Apparently by his skilled cross-examination, defense counsel succeeded in eliciting enough tainted syndrome evidenc......
  • Chambers v. Commonwealth, 2001-SC-0088-MR.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • 21 Agosto 2003
    ...v. Commonwealth, Ky., 547 S.W.2d 125,127 (1977); Martin v. Commonwealth, Ky., 477 S.W.2d 506, 508 (1972); West v. Commonwealth, Ky., 117 S.W.2d 998, 999, 273 Ky. 779 (1938). 35. Tipton at 36. Parido at 127. 37. Tamme v. Commonwealth, Ky., 973 S.W.2d 13, 32-33 (1998)(Appellant's theory of th......
  • Willoughby v. Com.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • 16 Junio 1950
    ...that a defendant cannot object to the search of premises of a third party. We have recognized it in a number of cases. West v. Commonwealth, 273 Ky. 779, 117 S.W.2d 998. In the present case not only did the defendant, Willoughby, then claim to be in charge of the premises but has been, in f......
  • 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