Court Opinion

ID: 9681541
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:52:20.691606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:34.339750
License: Public Domain

HOGG, Judge
(dissenting).
I would affirm the judgment.
I disagree with the majority because I ■do not think the complained of argument ■of the Commonwealth’s Attorney, though improper, could have had any weight in the jury’s decision of the case and, therefore, it was not prejudicial to appellant’s substantial rights. The language complained of was neither . abusive nor inflammatory, or such as would have misled or deceived the jury.
The statement of the' Commonwealth’s Attorney, “ ‘We tried two fellows last court for robbing a taxi driver of $1,800 and they were convicted’ ”, technically was improper. He might have said, “We • have tried and convicted many who were.charged with robbery.’-’ Such statement as made by the Commonwealth’s Attorney could not have become the basis for any argument upon which the Commonwealth’s Attorney attempted to prove the guilt of appellant.
The second statement objected to was, “•‘The defendant said he was out to crook him and out to get him drunk, you saw how cocky he was on the witness stand and you heard him say that he won every goddam cent he had.’ ”
While the trial court is not recorded as having formally sustained the objection to this statement, it is shown that the court did admonish the jury that they should be guided by the evidence which they had heard, and not what the attorney said. Granted that there--was some misquotation of the evidence, in view of the court’s admonition I fail - tb see wherein the appellant could have been prejudiced. The jury undoubtedly remembered the evidence, perhaps better ’than did the Commonwealth’s Attorney. . .
As to the statement of the Commonwealth’s Attorney, “ ‘We have had a crowd around that same-corner that defied everybody and machine-gunned the officers, and we have had them in here’ ”, the court made a timely admonition to the jury not to consider the statement. If the statement was improper, I think the admonition was amply sufficient to protect the rights of appellant and the court ■ was entirely correct in refusing to set aside the swearing of the jury and to . continue the case. The jury knew the statement was unauthorized, by the evidence. There was nothing inflammatory about it. It is my belief that it is more plausible to say that this statement, unauthorized from the evidence, redounded to the benefit of the appellant rather than to his disadvantage,, especially in view of the admonition of the court. The jurors I have been acquainted with in my experience at the Bar, are as wide awake and as cognizant to what the evidence is in a given case on a given matter as is the attorney who at the time may be arguing the case.
*26Improper arguments must be found to be, not only improper, but also so highly improper "as to be substantially prejudicial to the accused to warrant a reversal. See, Drake v. Commonwealth, 263 Ky. 107, 91 S.W.2d 1009, and many other cases found in Ky. Dig., Criminal Law, 1171 (3).
■ For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent.