Opinion ID: 2461850
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain a conviction of murder and first-degree robbery.

Text: The next issue concerns the sufficiency of the evidence to support the murder charge and the first-degree robbery charge. The Commonwealth offered evidence which, taken as a whole, was sufficient for the jury to find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on both charges. The following evidence sustains the murder conviction: Witnesses saw appellant near the time of the incident on the railroad tracks. Appellant initially blamed another man for the crime and later retracted those statements. Jail inmate, Tony Mallory, testified to appellant's candid admission while in jail of shooting and beating Hamlin. The evidence concerning the robbery is as follows: The victim's wife testified that a gold watch, wedding band, Masonic rings, and wallet containing $100.00 were in her husband's possession when he left for his walk the day he was killed. None of those items were located when the victim's body was recovered. Appellant's statements inculpating a third party, whom he later exonerated, contained a description of robbing the victim of these items. Appellant's brother testified that on the afternoon the crime occurred George Owens, also present during the slaying, gave him two fifty dollar bills and requested that he buy a car for Owens and appellant. Though appellant was not in possession of any of the stolen items at his arrest, the evidence was more than sufficient to meet the standard for evidence announced in Trowel v. Commonwealth, Ky., 550 S.W.2d 530, 533 (1977): If under the evidence as a whole it would not be clearly unreasonable for a jury to find the defendant guilty, he is not entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal. See also Commonwealth v. Sawhill, Ky., 660 S.W.2d 3, 4 (1983). Despite the absence of direct evidence, the jury could reasonably find appellant guilty from the totality of the evidence.