Taylor v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Taylor v. Commonwealth

233 S.W.2d 278, 313 Ky. 671, 1950 Ky. LEXIS 953

DecidedOctober 13, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 233 S.W.2d 278 (Taylor v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Taylor v. Commonwealth, 233 S.W.2d 278, 313 Ky. 671, 1950 Ky. LEXIS 953 (Ky. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Clay, Commissioner

Affirming.

Appellant was convicted of the crime of grand larceny, and sentenced to serve .five years in the state reformatory. On this appeal he urges: (1) he was entitled to.a directed verdict of not guilty, and (2) the instructions given the jury were erroneous,

Charles Keller testified -that on the 29th of July, 1948, a red brindle milk cow.-without horns, reasonably valued at $200, was stolen from him. A Mr. Lewis testified that two days thereafter he purchased a red milk cow with no horns from appellant, for which he paid $100 by check. He said it was exactly like the cow described by the prosecuting' witness. The sheriff of Laurel County testified appellant told him he got .the cow from the prosecuting witness, and took the sheriff [672]*672to see Mr. Lewis, who had bought it. Appellant introduced no evidence.

Appellant argues that the proof is insufficient to establish the cow bought by Lewis was the cow stolen from Keller. We think there was substantial evidence from which the jury could reasonably reach that conclusion. Appellant further insists the jury was required to speculate concerning his guilt, but there was evidence of substance that a red cow was stolen; that two days later a cow of like description was sold by appellant; and appellant admitted to the sheriff that he had taken it. This proof was amply sufficient to establish the crime of which appellant was charged.

Appellant further argues that the instructions did not present the whole law of the case, but we can find no error in this respect.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Clay, Commissioner

Affirming.

Appellant was convicted of the crime of grand larceny, and sentenced to serve .five years in the state reformatory. On this appeal he urges: (1) he was entitled to.a directed verdict of not guilty, and (2) the instructions given the jury were erroneous,

Charles Keller testified -that on the 29th of July, 1948, a red brindle milk cow.-without horns, reasonably valued at $200, was stolen from him. A Mr. Lewis testified that two days thereafter he purchased a red milk cow with no horns from appellant, for which he paid $100 by check. He said it was exactly like the cow described by the prosecuting' witness. The sheriff of Laurel County testified appellant told him he got .the cow from the prosecuting witness, and took the sheriff [672]*672to see Mr. Lewis, who had bought it. Appellant introduced no evidence.

Appellant argues that the proof is insufficient to establish the cow bought by Lewis was the cow stolen from Keller. We think there was substantial evidence from which the jury could reasonably reach that conclusion. Appellant further insists the jury was required to speculate concerning his guilt, but there was evidence of substance that a red cow was stolen; that two days later a cow of like description was sold by appellant; and appellant admitted to the sheriff that he had taken it. This proof was amply sufficient to establish the crime of which appellant was charged.

Appellant further argues that the instructions did not present the whole law of the case, but we can find no error in this respect.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 S.W.2d 278, 313 Ky. 671, 1950 Ky. LEXIS 953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-commonwealth-kyctapp-1950.