Williams v. Com.
| Decision Date | 03 June 1980 |
| Citation | 602 S.W.2d 148 |
| Parties | Roy Lee WILLIAMS, Movant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Jack Emory Farley, Public Advocate, J. Vincent Aprile, II, C. Thomas Hectus, Asst. Public Advocates, Frankfort, for movant.
Steven L. Beshear, Atty. Gen., Victor Fox, Penny R. Warren, Asst. Attys. Gen., Frankfort, for respondent.
Roy Lee Williams was convicted of rape and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. This court granted his motion for discretionary review of a decision by the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment. Of principal concern in our granting the review was the denial of Williams' motion to strike certain of the Commonwealth's evidence on the basis of its failure to establish the integrity of the physical items on which it was founded. We have determined, however, that the motion was not timely and that there was no error.
Janice Dunaway, 14-year-old daughter of a woman with whom Williams was living, accused him of raping her. After she told her mother about it the incident was reported to the police authorities. Trooper Steve Duff took Janice to a hospital, where she was examined by a Dr. Ahmad. When they met Dr. Ahmad, Trooper Duff handed him a rape-kit containing swabs, combs, plastic bags and an instruction sheet. After he had examined Janice in private, Dr. Ahmad returned the kit to Trooper Duff and also gave him Janice's panties. The panties were placed in a paper bag, which was then initialed by the officer and by the doctor. Janice testified that these items of evidence were delivered by the doctor to Trooper Duff in her presence. In response to the question, "At the time he got your panties were . . . they were in the same condition as they were when you took them off?" She answered, "Uh huh."
From this point on there was no deficiency in the chain of custody. Trooper Duff caused the exhibits, including Janice's panties, to be examined at the state police laboratory in Frankfort and introduced them as an exhibit with his testimony. When the exhibit was admitted, the trial court specifically asked defense counsel whether he had any objection, to which he replied, "No, sir." In due course the expert witness who had performed the laboratory examination testified that he found semen in the panties and in the vaginal swabs and that in the victim's pubic hair combings he found two brown hairs different from the samples of her own hair. Again there was no objection to the reception of this testimony.
The alleged missing link in the chain of custody was Dr. Ahmad, who did not testify, but no question was raised in this regard until the Commonwealth had rested its case in chief, at which time defense counsel moved that the evidence "relating to the samples that were forwarded to the laboratory be stricken" because there had been no testimony from Dr. Ahmad that the items given by him to Trooper Duff had been taken from Janice and were in the same condition as when taken. The motion was denied upon the ground...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hager v. Allstate Insurance Company, No. 2007-CA-002599-MR (Ky. App. 10/16/2009)
...Kentucky Evidence Law Handbook (Fourth Edition), p. 36 (2003) (citing Sallee v. Ashlock, 438 S.W.2d 538 (Ky. 1969) and Williams v. Commonwealth, 602 S.W.2d 148 (Ky. 1980)). See also, 21 Wright and Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence 2d, § 5037.1 (noting that under the very simi......
-
Chumbler v. Com.
...and the shed as the barn. There is no indication that the prosecutor deliberately misled the jury in this regard. See Williams v. Commonwealth, Ky., 602 S.W.2d 148 (1980). Opening statements are not evidence and these jurors were aware of that definition. There was no error. Kroth v. Common......
-
Winstead v. Com.
...Kentucky Evidence Law Handbook (Fourth Edition), p. 36 (2003) (citing Sallee v. Ashlock, 438 S.W.2d 538 (Ky.1969) and Williams v. Commonwealth, 602 S.W.2d 148 (Ky.1980)). See also, 21 Wright and Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence 2d, § 5037.1 (2005) (noting that under the very......
-
Sanborn v. Com.
...guilt phase. The appellant contends that the prosecution's objection was waived because it was not timely filed. Williams v. Commonwealth, Ky., 602 S.W.2d 148, 149 (1980). He further contends that a proper foundation existed for Dr. Johnson's testimony to be admitted and that the statements......