Case Title: ERIC LEE ANTHONY V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2018-SC-000206-MR

State: kentucky

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Date: 2019-09-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4){C), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER, UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS, RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE ACTION. RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 26, 2019 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 2018-SC-000206-MR ERIC LEE ANTHONY APPELLANT ON APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT V. HON. AUDRA ECKERLE, JUDGE NO. 16-CR-001742 COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING Er ic Le e Ant ho ny appe als fr o m a jud gme nt o f t he Je ffe r so n Cir c uit Co ur t c o nv ic t ing him o f t w o c o unt s o f w ant o n mur d e r , t w o c o unt s o f se c o nd -d e gr e e assault , t hr e e c o unt s o f fir st -d e gr e e w ant o n e nd ange r me nt , and o ne c o unt o f po sse ssio n o f a hand gun by a c o nv ic t e d fe lo n and se nt e nc ing him t o impr iso nme nt fo r life . We affir m. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2010 Ant ho ny sho t Do nt ae Tho mpso n. He w as c o nv ic t e d o f t he sho o t ing, w as se nt e nc e d t o pr iso n, and had be e n r e le ase d sho r t ly be fo r e t he June 21, 2016, sho o t ings at issue in t his c ase . The r e w e r e har d fe e lings be t w e e n Ant ho ny and Tho mpso n’s e xt e nd e d family be c ause o f t he 2010 sho o t ing t hat r e sult e d in suspic io ns o n bo t h sid e s. Mur d e r v ic t ims Do nt e Je ffe r so n and Mo nt ae Co mpt o n w e r e Tho mpso n’s c o usins. De quand r e Br o w n w as a fr ie nd o f Je ffe r so n and Co mpt o n’s and w as also , unc o nne c t e d ly, a fr ie nd o f Ant ho ny’s. Br o w n, w ho w as pr e se nt at t he sho o t ings, t e st ifie d t hat he , Je ffe r so n, and Co mpt o n had fo llo w e d Ant ho ny in Je ffe r so n’s gr ay Che v r o le t Impala e ar lie r in t he d ay t o “se e w ho he w as w it h . . se e if he w as o n anyt hing” be c ause t he y w e r e “he ar ing he ’s o ut t o . . . kill us and t hings like t hat ” and so t he y w e r e “ke e ping t abs ” o n him. Ant ho ny w as familiar w it h Je ffe r so n’s Impala and w as aw ar e he w as be ing fo llo w e d . The sho o t ings o c c ur r e d at an apar t me nt lo c at e d at 2802 Ro d man St r e e t in Lo uisv ille . Br o w n w as a d r ug d e ale r and w as fr e que nt ly at t hat lo c at io n d e aling d r ugs. Ant ho ny w as also a d r ug d e ale r . He t e st ifie d t hat o n t he d ay o f t he sho o t ings, he r e c e iv e d a t e xt fr o m a c ust o me r w ant ing t o buy mar ijuana. Ant ho ny d id n’t hav e any mar ijuana, and he t e st ifie d he d e c id e d t o find his fr ie nd Br o w n and t r ad e Br o w n so me me t h fo r so me mar ijuana, so me t hing he had d o ne in t he past . Ant ho ny kne w t hat Br o w n r e gular ly st aye d at t he Ro d man St r e e t apar t me nt , and ac c o r d ing t o Ant ho ny, he w e nt t o t he apar t me nt t o c o mple t e t he t r ad e . Ant ho ny t e st ifie d t hat w hile he e xpe c t e d Br o w n t o be at t he lo c at io n, he d id no t e xpe c t Je ffe r so n and Co mpt o n t o be t he r e . He fur t he r st at e d he w o uld hav e av o id e d be ing in t he same r o o m w it h Je ffe r so n be c ause if t hat o c c ur r e d , he be lie v e d Br o w n and Co mpt o n w o uld be t he r e as w e ll and he w o uld be o ut numbe r e d . On t he e v e ning o f June 21, 2016, Je ffe r so n, Co mpt o n, and Br o w n, amo ng o t he r s, w e r e at t he Ro d man St r e e t apar t me nt . Je ffe r so n and Co mpt o n 2 w e r e ar me d w it h pist o ls. Br o w n t e st ifie d t hat abo ut an ho ur be fo r e t he sho o t ings, Ant ho ny’s gir lfr ie nd , Cic e ly Mo r r is, d r o v e slo w ly past t he apar t me nt t w ic e , t he n par ke d in fr o nt o f it . Mo r r is liv e d abo ut t hr e e blo c ks fr o m t he apar t me nt , and Ant ho ny w as at Mo r r is ’s apar t me nt jus t be fo r e he le ft fo r t he Ro d man St r e e t apar t me nt ar o und 10:00 p.m. Ant ho ny t e st ifie d he par ke d his c ar so me d ist anc e aw ay fr o m t he apar t me nt and w alke d t he r e st o f t he w ay. Je ffe r so n had d r iv e n his Impala t o t he apar t me nt t hat d ay, but he had par ke d it in bac k so t hat it c o uld no t be se e n fr o m Ro d man St r e e t . Ant ho ny t e st ifie d he d id no t se e t he Impala w he n he ar r iv e d at t he apar t me nt , and he w o uld no t hav e go ne t o t he apar t me nt if he had se e n t he c ar o r o t he r w ise kno w n Je ffe r so n w as t he r e . Ne v e r t he le ss, alt ho ugh Ant ho ny e nt e r e d t he apar t me nt fr o m t he bac k, he t e st ifie d he d id no t se e t he Impala as he e nt e r e d . Ant ho ny t e st ifie d he c ar r ie d a gun mo st o f t he t ime and had o ne w it h him t hat e v e ning. Whe n Ant ho ny ar r iv e d at t he apar t me nt , t he r e ar d o o r w as o pe n. Br o w n and Je ffe r so n w e r e in t he kit c he n se at e d at t he kit c he n t able , w it h Je ffe r so n ne ar e st t he d o o r . Co mpt o n w as in t he fr o nt ar e a o f t he apar t me nt . Tiffany Funk and Cr aig Zie gle r w e r e in t he kit c he n st and ing by a c abine t , Je nna King w as in a be d r o o m, and Ashle y Ho d ge s had jus t st ar t e d t o e nt e r t he bat hr o o m. King and Ho d ge s liv e d in t he apar t me nt . Ant ho ny e nt e r e d t he apar t me nt and aske d w he r e Br o w n w as. Ac c o r d ing t o Br o w n, so me o ne “ye ll[e d ] my name . . . me and Do nt e lo o ke d at e ac h o t he r like w ho w as t h at . . . [Je ffe r so n] r e ac he d fo r his gun” but “it fe ll o ut o f his lap . . . he w as r e ac hing fo r his gun, pic king his gun up, so ... I kne w he w as r e ad y 3 t o pic k his gun up, he w as r e ad y t o st ar t sho o t ing.” Br o w n st at e d he t he n d uc ke d int o a c lo se t . Else w he r e in his t e st imo ny, Br o w n st at e d Ant ho ny d id no t hav e his gun d r aw n w he n he fir st w alke d in, but Je ffe r so n fir st int r o d uc e d a gun int o t he sit uat io n by “go [ing] fo r his gun,” d r o pping it , and t he n st ar t ing t o pic k it up. Br o w n t e st ifie d Ant ho ny “w as pulling [his gun] o ut at t he same t ime t hat [Je ffe r so n] w as pic king his gun up,” but Je ffe r so n had st ar t e d t o pic k up his gun fir st be fo r e Ant ho ny be gan sho o t ing. It is w o r t h no t ing, ho w e v e r , t hat Je ffe r so n’s pic king up his gun d o e s no t ne c e ssar ily e quat e t o an int e nt t o fir e at Ant ho ny aft e r r e t r ie v ing it . In c o nt r ast , Ant ho ny t e st ifie d t hat w he n he ar r iv e d at t he bac k d o o r , Mo nt e a Co mpt o n d r e w his gun and he r e spo nd e d by r aising his hand s and saying he w as jus t t he r e lo o king fo r Br o w n. Ac c o r d ing t o Ant ho ny, Co mpt o n r e spo nd e d by plac ing t he gun bac k o n his lap. Ant ho ny st at e d he st ar t e d w alking t o w ar d Br o w n and t he n he ar d a t hump and lo o ke d and saw Je ffe r so n t r ying t o pic k up his gun fr o m t he flo o r . Ant ho ny t he n t e st ifie d , “h e ’s go t his hand o n his gun, he ’s t r ying t o pic k it up, but lo o king at me .” Ant ho ny t e st ifie d t hat upo n se e ing Je ffe r so n pic k up his gun and lo o k at him, he fe lt “panic ,” d r e w his gun, and , w hile t r ying t o bac k o ut o f t he apar t me nt , fir e d a sho t t o w ar d Je ffe r so n. Ant ho ny st at e d he t he n o bse r v e d Co mpt o n “go ing fo r his gun again,” and so he sho t t o w ar d Co mpt o n as w e ll. Ant ho ny t e st ifie d t hat w hile he w as t r ying t o e xit t he apar t me nt , he saw o t he r pe o ple c o ming o ut o f a be d r o o m and so he “jus t fir e d [d ] t w o mo r e r and o m 4 sho t s ” and r an fr o m t he apar t me nt . He fur t he r st at e d t hat w hile fle e ing, he saw t hat t he fr o nt d o o r w as o pe ning, and so he fir e d a c o uple o f mo r e sho t s be c ause he be lie v e d he w as be ing c hase d . As a r e sult o f t he sho o t ings, Je ffe r so n and Co mpt o n w e r e kille d , and Ashle y Ho d ge s and Cr aig Zie gle r w e r e w o und e d . Se r ge ant Jaso n Vanc e w as t he le ad d e t e c t iv e o n t he c ase . Sho r t ly aft e r t he sho o t ings, he int e r v ie w e d Tiffany Funk and Ashle y Ho d ge s. Bo t h id e nt ifie d Ant ho ny as t he sho o t e r . Ant ho ny w as ar r e st e d sho r t ly aft e r t he sho o t ings and d e nie d any inv o lv e me nt in t he o c c ur r e nc e , inc lud ing e v e n be ing at t he apar t me nt . Ant ho ny file d a pr e t r ial mo t io n se e king t o e xc lud e Funk and Ho d ge s ’ o ut -o f-c o ur t id e nt ific at io n o f him. Ant ho ny’s d e fe nse at t r ial, c o nt r ar y t o his st at e me nt t o t he po lic e t he night o f t he sho o t ing w he n he c laime d he w as no t at all inv o lv e d , w as se lf- d e fe nse . At t he e nd o f t he t r ial, t he jur y c o nv ic t e d Ant ho ny o f t w o c o unt s o f w ant o n mur d e r , t w o c o unt s o f se c o nd -d e gr e e assault , t hr e e c o unt s o f fir st - d e gr e e w ant o n e nd ange r me nt , and o ne c o unt o f po sse ssio n o f a hand gun by a c o nv ic t e d fe lo n. He w as se nt e nc e d t o impr iso nme nt fo r life . II. CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ANTHONY ON HIS PRETRIAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS Ant ho ny c o nt e nd s t he t r ial c o ur t e r r e d by pe r mit t ing t he Co mmo nw e alt h t o c r o ss-e xamine him c o nc e r ning his filing an unsuc c e ssful pr e t r ial mo t io n t o suppr e ss Tiffany Funk and Ashle y Ho d ge s ’ id e nt ific at io n o f him. He ar gue s t hat t he subje c t mat t e r o f t he c r o ss-e xaminat io n w as no t r e le v ant at t r ial and se r v e d o nly t o pe nalize him fo r asse r t ing a c o nst it ut io nal r ight . He also 5 c o nt e nd s t hat pe r mit t ing c r o ss-e xaminat io n o n t he suppr e ssio n mo t io n had t he ad d it io nal e ffe c t s o f impe d ing his r ight t o ad v ic e o f c o unse l, his r ight t o t e st ify o n his o w n be half, and his r ight t o pr e se nt a d e fe nse . Tiffany Funk and Ashle y Ho d ge s w e r e bo t h pr e se nt at t he Ro d man St r e e t apar t me nt w he n t he sho o t ings o c c ur r e d , and bo t h alr e ad y kne w Ant ho ny. Ho d ge s t e st ifie d she saw Ant ho ny at t he apar t me nt but d id no t se e t he ac t ual sho o t ings, w hile Funk t e st ifie d she saw Ant ho ny fir ing t he gun. Funk and Ho d ge s w e r e int e r v ie w e d by t he po lic e fo llo w ing t he sho o t ings, and bo t h w it ne sse s id e nt ifie d Ant ho ny as t he sho o t e r . Ant ho ny file d a mo t io n t o suppr e ss bo t h t he pr e t r ial id e nt ific at io n o f him as und uly sugge st iv e and any in-c o ur t id e nt ific at io n o f him as be ing t he pr o d uc t o f an und uly sugge st iv e id e nt ific at io n pr o c e ss. See Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972); Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (2012). The t r ial c o ur t d e nie d t he suppr e ssio n mo t io n, and Ant ho ny d o e s no t c halle nge t hat r uling; r at he r , he c halle nge s t he t r ial c o ur t ’s r uling pe r mit t ing t he Co mmo nw e alt h t o c r o ss-e xamine him o n his hav ing file d t he mo t io n. The Co mmo nw e alt h c o nt e nd s t his c r o ss-e xaminat io n w as pr o pe r be c ause it s pur po se w as t o r e v e al Ant ho ny’s shift ing st o r ie s and c hanging d e fe nse s and t o impe ac h him o n t he se d iffe r ing v e r sio ns. Fur t he r , t he Co mmo nw e alt h asse r t s it s c r o ss-e xaminat io n d e mo nst r at e d t hat w he n Ant ho ny c o uld no t ke e p t he se w it ne sse s fr o m t e st ifying, he aband o ne d his o r iginal c laim t hat he w as no t pr e se nt at t he Ro d man St r e e t apar t me nt t hat night and inst e ad sw it c he d t o a se lf-pr o t e c t io n d e fe nse . 6 Our ho ld ing ad d r e ssing an analo go us sit uat io n in Coulthard v. Commonwealth, 230 S.W.3d 572 (Ky. 2007), is d ispo sit iv e o f t his issue . In Coulthard t he d e fe nd ant w as c o nv ic t e d o f fir st -d e gr e e manslaught e r and t ampe r ing w it h physic al e v id e nc e . On appe al Co ult har d ar gue d his c o nst it ut io nal r ight t o be fr e e o f w ar r ant le ss se ar c he s w as v io lat e d w he n t he Co mmo nw e alt h int r o d uc e d e v id e nc e t hat he had r e fuse d t o c o nse nt t o a finge r pr int sampling d ur ing t he inv e st igat io n. In suppo r t o f his ar gume nt , Co ult har d r e lie d o n Deno v. Commonwealth, 177 S.W.3d 753 (Ky. 2005), a c ase in w hic h w e he ld it is unc o nst it ut io nal t o pe nalize a d e fe nd ant fo r e xe r c ising his c o nst it ut io nal r ight t o be fr e e o f w ar r ant le ss se ar c he s. In Deno t he d e fe nd ant r e fuse d t o v o lunt ar ily c o nse nt t o t he t aking o f a bio lo gic al spe c ime n, w hic h r e fusal w as t he n use d against him at t r ial t o sho w he ac t e d inc o nsist e nt ly w it h ho w an inno c e nt pe r so n w o uld ac t . Id. at 762 (“Ne v e r t he le ss, t he fac t o f Appe llant ’s init ial r e fusal w as pr e se nt e d as e v id e nc e o f his guilt and ar gue d as suc h by t he Co mmo nw e alt h. We be lie v e t his t o be a v io lat io n o f Appe llant ’s r ight s und e r t he Fo ur t h Ame nd me nt and Se c t io n 10 o f t he Co nst it ut io n o f Ke nt uc ky! ]”). Ant ho ny r aise s a similar ar gume nt he r e . He ar gue s his pr e t r ial mo t io n w as pr e d ic at e d upo n his c o nst it ut io nal r ight no t t o be subje c t e d t o an impr o pe r ly o bt aine d sugge st iv e id e nt ific at io n und e r Neil v. Biggers, and t he filing o f t hat mo t io n t o v ind ic at e t his r ight w as impr o pe r ly allo w e d t o be use d t he r e aft e r by t he Co mmo nw e alt h at t r ial as e v id e nc e o f guilt . Just as w as Coulthard, ho w e v e r , t his c ase is d ist inguishable fr o m Deno. Unlike in Deno 7 w he r e t he Co mmo nw e alt h use d t he d e fe nd ant ’s r e fusal t o giv e a bio lo gic al spe c ime n pur e ly t o sho w t hat is no t ho w an inno c e nt pe r so n w o uld ac t , he r e t he r e w as a le git imat e and pr o pe r use o f t he pr e t r ial mo t io n t o , at minimum, d e mo nst r at e (1) Ant ho ny’s shift ing and c o nt r ad ic t o r y d e fe nse s, and (2) a pat t e r n in at t e mpt ing t o sile nc e w it ne sse s. “In d e t e r mining w he t he r a c o nst it ut io nal r ight has be e n bur d e ne d impe r missibly, it also is appr o pr iat e t o c o nsid e r t he le git imac y o f t he c halle nge d go v e r nme nt al pr ac t ic e .” Coulthard, 230 S.W. 3d at 583 (c it ing Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231, 238 (1980)). In Coulthard w e d ist inguishe d t he use o f t he finge r pr int e v id e nc e impe ac hme nt fr o m t he fac t s in Deno in t hat Co ult har d ’s r e fusal t o c o nse nt t o finge r pr int sampling w as r e le v ant fo r pur po se s o t he r t han t o simply pe nalize him fo r t he e xe r c ise o f a le gal pr iv ile ge , w he r e as t he r e w as no suc h le git imat e o t he r pur po se in Deno. Coulthard, 230 S.W.3d at 582. Mo r e spe c ific ally, in Coulthard w e ac kno w le d ge d t he Co mmo nw e alt h ut ilize d his r e fusal t o c o nse nt t o a finge r pr int sample fo r t he le git imat e pur po se s o f r e but t al and impe ac hme nt o f a se lf-d e fe nse c laim ad v anc e d by Co ult har d at t r ial. That is similar t o w hat o c c ur r e d he r e . In t his c ase t he Co mmo nw e alt h d id no t se e k t o int r o d uc e t he id e nt ific at io n suppr e ssio n mo t io n e v id e nc e t o pe nalize Ant ho ny by ar guing an inno c e nt pe r so n w o uld no t d o t hat . Rat he r , t he Co mmo nw e alt h so ught t o impe ac h Ant ho ny’s se lf-d e fe nse c laim by sho w ing he o r iginally d e nie d be ing at t he Ro d man St r e e t apar t me nt , but lat e r 8 c hange d his t r ial st r at e gy w he n he w as unable t o suppr e ss t he e ye w it ne ss t e st imo ny plac ing him at t he apar t me nt . This c ase is o n po int w it h Coulthard. The r e , t he Co mmo nw e alt h ar gue d Co ult har d ’s c laim o f se lf-d e fe nse w as no t c r e d ible c o nsid e r ing t he c ir c umst anc e s t hat t r anspir e d fo llo w ing t he sho o t ing, inc lud ing e v id e nc e w hic h t e nd e d t o sho w Co ult har d init ially d id e v e r yt hing in his po w e r t o d e ny inv o lv e me nt , inc lud ing d e st r o ying e v id e nc e , and o nly w he n t ho se at t e mpt s faile d d id Co ult har d c hange his st o r y and c laim se lf-d e fe nse . Id. at 582-83. That is subst ant ially w hat o c c ur r e d he r e . In find ing t hat t he r e fusal t o submit t o finge r pr int sampling in Courthard w as pr o pe r ly use d against t he d e fe nd ant at t r ial, w e st at e d as fo llo w s: Onc e Appe llant submit t e d himse lf t o c r o ss-e xaminat io n aft e r c laiming se lf d e fe nse at t r ial, it w as no t o nly appr o pr iat e but ne c e ssar y fo r t he Co mmo nw e alt h t o impe ac h Appe llant 's c r e d ibilit y and r e but his alle gat io ns. As the traditional truth-testing devices of the adversarial process, impeachment and rebuttal are vital to ensuring a just and fair trial. Thus, preserving each party's right to utilize such devices at trial should weigh heavily when considering counterbalancing claims of “constitutional privilege.” See Jenkins, 447 U.S. at 238, 100 S.Ct . 2124 (“Onc e a d e fe nd ant d e c id e s t o t e st ify, ‘[t ]he int e r e st s o f t he o t he r par t y and r e gar d fo r t he func t io n o f c o ur t s o f just ic e t o asc e r t ain t he t r ut h be c o me r e le v ant , and pr e v ail in t he balanc e o f c o nsid e r at io ns d e t e r mining t he sc o pe and limit s o f t he pr iv ile ge against se lf-inc r iminat io n.’”) (quo t ing Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 156, 78 S.Ct . 622, 627, 2 L.Ed .2d 589 (1958)). Coulthard, 230 S.W.3d at 584 (e mphasis in o r iginal). Se e also Jenkins, 447 U.S. at 238 (The use o f t he d e fe nd ant ’s pr e -ar r e st sile nc e against him at t r ial w as no t unc o nst it ut io nal sinc e “impe ac hme nt fo llo w s t he d e fe nd ant ’s o w n 9 d e c isio n t o c ast asid e his c lo ak o f sile nc e and ad v anc e s t he t r ut h-find ing func t io n o f t he c r iminal t r ial[ ]”). Coulthard also r e lie d upo n ano t he r c ase similar t o t his o ne , United States v. Robinson, 485 U.S. 25 (1988). Coulthard, 230 S.W.3d at 583. In Robinson t he d e fe nd ant ’s at t o r ne y ar gue d se v e r al t ime s d ur ing c lo sing ar gume nt t hat t he go v e r nme nt ne v e r allo w e d t he d e fe nd ant (w ho d id no t t e st ify) t o e xplain his sid e o f t he st o r y. 485 U.S. at 26. In r e spo nse , t he pr o se c ut o r c o mme nt e d d ur ing his c lo sing ar gume nt t hat t he d e fe nd ant “c o uld hav e t ake n t he st and and e xplaine d it t o yo u.” Id. The d e fe nd ant 's c o nv ic t io ns w e r e subse que nt ly r e v e r se d o n gr o und s t hat t he pr o se c ut o r 's c o mme nt r e gar d ing t he d e fe nd ant ’s failur e t o t ake t he st and in his o w n d e fe nse v io lat e d t he d e fe nd ant 's pr iv ile ge against se lf-inc r iminat io n. Id. at 29. Upo n r e v ie w , t he U.S. Supr e me Co ur t in Robinson fo und no v io lat io n o f any c o nst it ut io nal r ight s sinc e t he pr o se c ut o r 's “r e fe r e nc e t o t he d e fe nd ant 's o ppo r t unit y t o t e st ify [w as] a fair r e spo nse t o a c laim mad e by d e fe nd ant o r his c o unse l.” Id. at 32. In so ho ld ing, t he Co ur t quo t e d Just ic e St e v e ns fo r t he fo llo w ing pr inc iple : “t he pr o t e c t iv e shie ld o f t he Fift h Ame nd me nt sho uld [no t ] be c o nv e r t e d int o a sw o r d t hat c ut s bac k o n t he ar e a o f le git imat e c o mme nt by t he pr o se c ut o r o n t he w e akne sse s in t he d e fe nse c ase .” Id. (quo t ing United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 515 (1983) (St e v e ns, J., c o nc ur r ing) (c it at io n o mit t e d )). See Coulthard, 230 S.W.3d at 583. We also st at e d in Coulthard t hat “[alt ho ugh Jenkins and Robinson inv o lv e d t he pr iv ile ge against se lf-inc r iminat io n and w he t he r ar gume nt s 10 r e gar d ing it s use v io lat e d e it he r t he Fift h o r Fo ur t e e nt h Ame nd me nt s, t he pr inc iple s se t fo r t h t he r e in apt ly apply t o t his c ase and t he d e t e r minat io n as t o w he t he r t he se fac t s v io lat e d [Neil v. Biggers] and Se c t io n 10 o f t he Ke nt uc ky Co nst it ut io n.” Id. at 584. Coulthard c o nc lud e d w it h t he fo llo w ing summar y o f t he r ule w e apply he r e : Ge ne r ally, suc h as in Deno, e xe r c ising o ne ’s pr iv ile ge t o be fr e e o f w ar r ant le ss se ar c he s is simply no t pr o bat iv e (o r has lo w pr o bat iv e v alue ) t o a d e t e r minat io n o f guilt , and t hus, t he d e fe nd ant 's r ight t o no t be pe nalize d fo r e xe r c ising suc h a pr iv ile ge is par amo unt . See, e .g., United States v. Thame, 846 F.2d 200, 207 (3r d Cir . 1988), United States v. Prescott, 581 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 (9t h Cir . 1978). Ho w e v e r , in c ir c umst anc e s w he n suc h e v id e nc e is pr o bat iv e fo r so me pur po se o t he r t han t o simply pe nalize t he d e fe nd ant fo r e xe r c ising a c o nst it ut io nal r ight , t he n no t io ns o f fair play and t he ne e d t o pr e se r v e t he t r ut h-t e st ing func t io ns o f t he ad v e r sar ial pr o c e ss may o ut w e igh t he d e fe nd ant 's int e r e st in suppr e ssing t he e v id e nc e . Id. at 584. The fac t s in t his c ase d o no t d e mo nst r at e a v io lat io n o f Ant ho ny’s c o nst it ut io nal r ight s und e r Neil v. Biggers, any o t he r fe d e r al c o nst it ut io nal se c t io n, o r Se c t io n 10 o f Ke nt uc ky’s Co nst it ut io n. The c ir c umst anc e s sur r o und ing Ant ho ny’s e ffo r t s t o suppr e ss t he id e nt ific at io ns by Ho d ge s and Funk w e r e fair ly ad mit t e d fo r t he pr o pe r pur po se s o f r e but t ing and impe ac hing Ant ho ny’s c laim o f se lf-d e fe nse . Sinc e w e find t hat Ant ho ny w as no t unfair ly pe nalize d fo r e xe r c ising a c o nst it ut io nal r ight in t his c ase , he is no t e nt it le d t o r e lie f o n t his issue . Se e Coulthard, 230 S.W.3d at 584. 11 Ant ho ny make s e sse nt ially t he same ar gume nt t hat t he c r o ss- e xaminat io n o n t he suppr e ssio n issue w as impr o pe r be c ause it impe d e d his r ight t o ad v ic e o f c o unse l, his r ight t o t e st ify o n his o w n be half, and his r ight t o pr e se nt a d e fe nse . Fo r t he same r e aso ns as e xplaine d abo v e , w e c o nc lud e t hat t he suppr e ssio n mo t io n e v id e nc e w as pr o pe r ly pr e se nt e d t o c o unt e r and impe ac h Ant ho ny’s se lf-pr o t e c t io n d e fe nse . See Coulthard, supra. The c o nc ur r ing o pinio n d isagr e e s w it h t he abo v e analysis d e t e r mining t hat t he t r ial c o ur t pr o pe r ly allo w e d t he pr o se c ut o r t o c r o ss-e xamine Ant ho ny o n his mo t io n t o suppr e ss e ye w it ne ss id e nt ific at io n so as t o d e mo nst r at e t o t he jur y Ant ho ny’s shift ing d e fe nse fr o m “I w asn’t t he r e ” t o se lf-d e fe nse and t hus t o r e fut e his se lf-pr o t e c t io n d e fe nse and , anc illar y t o t hat , t o impe ac h his c r e d ibilit y. Und e r t he fac t s o f t his c ase , pur suant t o o ur ho ld ing in Coulthard, it w as pe r missible fo r t he Co mmo nw e alt h t o c all int o que st io n Ant ho ny’s se lf­ pr o t e c t io n d e fe nse by no t ing he had ac t e d inc o nsist e nt ly w it h t hat d e fe nse by init ially false ly c laiming he w as no t at t he r e sid e nc e t hat night , t he n se e king t o suppr e ss w it ne ss t e st imo ny sho w ing he w as pr e se nt at t he t ime o f t he sho o t ings, and failing t hat , fabr ic at ing an e nt ir e ly ne w d e fe nse o f se lf­ pr o t e c t io n. Onc e Ant ho ny r aise d se lf-pr o t e c t io n as his d e fe nse , t he bur d e n w as t he n plac e d upo n t he Co mmo nw e alt h t o sho w t hat he d id no t ac t in se lf-d e fe nse . Estep v. Commonwealth, 64 S.W.3d 805, 811 (Ky. 2002). Ant ho ny ad mit t e d at t r ial t hat he had fir e d t he sho t s, and t he c e nt r al issue in t he c ase at t hat po int 12 w as w he t he r t ho se sho t s w e r e fir e d in se lf-d e fe nse . Any e v id e nc e r e lat ing t o t hat issue had pr o bat iv e v alue and w as pr o pe r ly subje c t t o c o nsid e r at io n by t he jur y in making it s d e c isio n c o nc e r ning w he t he r Ant ho ny had fir e d in se lf- d e fe nse . KRE 611(b) pr o v id e s as fo llo w s: “Sc o pe o f c r o ss-e xaminat io n. A w it ne ss may be c r o ss-e xamine d o n any mat t e r r e le v ant t o any issue in t he c ase , inc lud ing c r e d ibilit y.” Re le v ant e v id e nc e is “e v id e nc e hav ing any t e nd e nc y t o make t he e xist e nc e o f any fac t t hat is o f c o nse que nc e t o t he d e t e r minat io n o f t he ac t io n mo r e pr o bable o r le ss pr o bable t han it w o uld be w it ho ut t he e v id e nc e .” KRE 401; Moorman v. Commonwealth, 325 S.W.3d 325, 332 (Ky. 2010). Ev id e nc e t hat Ant ho ny at t he o ut se t o f t he c r iminal pr o c e e d ings false ly c laime d he w as no t pr e se nt at t he r e sid e nc e and so ught t o suppr e ss t he t e st imo ny o f w it ne sse s w ho w o uld plac e him t he r e make s it le ss pr o bable t hat he c o mmit t e d t he sho o t ings in se lf-pr o t e c t io n; r at he r , it c ast s d o ubt o n t he d e fe nse as a post hoc r at io nalizat io n fo r t he sho o t ings. No r is t he pr o bat iv e v alue o f t he e v id e nc e subst ant ially o ut w e ighe d by t he d ange r o f und ue pr e jud ic e , c o nfusio n o f t he issue s, misle ad ing t o t he jur y, o r ne e d le ssly c umulat iv e . KRE 403. Thus, und e r a KRE 401-403 r e le v anc e analysis, w e be lie v e t he e v id e nc e is ad missible . The c o nc ur r ing o pinio n r e c o gnize s t hat e v id e nt iar y r ule s allo w an at t ac k o n a w it ne ss ’s c r e d ibilit y, but it also asse r t s t hat Ant ho ny d id no t t e st ify at t he suppr e ssio n he ar ing, t hat t he me r e filing o f t he mo t io n w as a d e c isio n o f his d e fe nse c o unse l, and t hat suc h d e c isio n and t he filing o f t he mo t io n c anno t be 13 at t r ibut e d t o Ant ho ny fo r pur po se s o f impe ac hme nt . In o t he r w o r d s, t he c o nc ur r ing o pinio n ho ld s t hat c r o ss-e xamining Ant ho ny w as no t an ac c e pt able manne r o f impe ac hing him be c ause his d e fe nse c o unse l’s t ac t ic al d e c isio n in se e king t o suppr e ss t he e ye w it ne sse s ’ id e nt ific at io n had no be ar ing o n his c r e d ibilit y as a w it ne ss. In suppo r t o f it s po sit io n, t he c o nc ur r ing o pinio n c it e s Neal v. Commonwealth, 95 S.W.3d 848 (Ky. 2003), and People v. Mulero, 176 I11.2d 444, 680 N.E.2d 1329 (1997). In Neal t he d e fe nd ant at t e mpt e d t o impe ac h t he t r ial t e st imo ny o f a c o -d e fe nd ant in ano t he r mat t e r in o r d e r t o d e mo nst r at e t hat t he c o -d e fe nd ant had a pat t e r n o f blaming t he d e fe nd ant fo r o t he r sho o t ings. Id. at 849. This Co ur t he ld t hat suc h w as impr o pe r as c o llat e r al impe ac hme nt e v id e nc e . Id. Impe ac hme nt o n c o llat e r al fac t s has c o nsist e nt ly be e n pr o hibit e d und e r o ur law . Matheny v. Commonwealth, 191 S.W.3d 599, 607 (Ky. 2006). He r e , ho w e v e r , t he int r o d uc t io n o f t he suppr e ssio n mo t io n t o r e fut e Ant ho ny’s se lf-pr o t e c t io n d e fe nse is no t impe ac hme nt o n a c o llat e r al mat t e r ; r at he r , it is c r uc ial e v id e nc e w he r e und e r t he Co mmo nw e alt h se e ks t o me e t it s bur d e n o f sho w ing t hat Ant ho ny d id no t ac t in se lf-d e fe nse . The c o nc ur r ing o pinio n also r e lie s in par t o n t he Mulero c ase fr o m Illino is. See Mulero, 680 N.E.2d 1329. Fo r t he r e aso ns st at e d abo v e , w e be lie v e o ur o pinio n in Coulthard, supra, is d ispo sit iv e and d o e s no t r e quir e us t o se e k guid anc e fr o m t he c o ur t s in Illino is. Fur t he r , w e be lie v e t he fac t s in Mulero ar e suffic ie nt ly d ist inguishable fr o m t he fac t s in Coulthard and t he fac t s he r e in t o w ar r ant a d iffe r e nt r e sult . 14 The c o nc ur r ing o pinio n e mphasize s t he fac t t hat t he suppr e ssio n mo t io n w as a t r ial t ac t ic o r st r at e gy and t hat suc h t ac t ic al d e c isio ns hav e no be ar ing o n a d e fe nd ant ’s c r e d ibilit y. Again, ho w e v e r , t he pur po se o f t he e v id e nc e w as t o r e but his se lf-pr o t e c t io n d e fe nse and d e mo nst r at e it s r e c e nt fabr ic at io n. And , pr e sumably, t he t ac t ic s and st r at e gy o f t he at t o r ne y w e r e c o nsist e nt w it h Ant ho ny’s d e fe nse as d e v e lo pe d in c o nc e r t w it h his at t o r ne y The c o nc ur r ing o pinio n w o uld d isallo w t he c r o ss-e xaminat io n o f Ant ho ny c o nc e r ning t he suppr e ssio n mo t io n be c ause Ant ho ny d id no t t e st ify at t he he ar ing o f t he mo t io n. The c o nc ur r ing o pinio n asse r t s t hat t he suppr e ssio n mo t io n it se lf has no be ar ing o n Ant ho ny’s c r e d ibilit y as a w it ne ss. In t he majo r it y ’s v ie w , ho w e v e r , t he suppr e ssio n mo t io n it se lf und e r mine s t he c r e d ibilit y o f Ant ho ny’s t r ial t e st imo ny w he r e in he r aise d t he d e fe nse o f se lf­ pr o t e c t io n. III. INITIAL AGGRESSOR QUALIFICATION INSTRUCTION Ant ho ny c o nt e nd s t he t r ial c o ur t e r r e d by giv ing an init ial aggr e sso r inst r uc t io n in c o nne c t io n w it h his se lf-pr o t e c t io n d e fe nse . KRS 503.050 pr o v id e s, in r e le v ant par t , as fo llo w s: (1) The use o f physic al fo r c e by a d e fe nd ant upo n ano t he r pe r so n is just ifiable w he n t he d e fe nd ant be lie v e s t hat suc h fo r c e is ne c e ssar y t o pr o t e c t himse lf against t he use o r immine nt use o f unlaw ful physic al fo r c e by t he o t he r pe r so n. (2) The use o f d e ad ly physic al fo r c e by a d e fe nd ant upo n ano t he r pe r so n is just ifiable und e r subse c t io n (1) o nly w he n t he d e fe nd ant be lie v e s t hat suc h fo r c e is ne c e ssar y t o pr o t e c t himse lf against d e at h, se r io us physic al injur y, kid napping, se xual int e r c o ur se 15 c o mpe lle d by fo r c e o r t hr e at , fe lo ny inv o lv ing t he use o f fo r c e , o r und e r t ho se c ir c umst anc e s pe r mit t e d pur suant t o KRS 503.055.1 The init ial aggr e sso r st at ut e , KRS 503.060 pr o v id e s, in par t , as fo llo w s: No t w it hst and ing t he pr o v isio ns o f KRS 503.050, t he use o f physic al fo r c e by a d e fe nd ant upo n ano t he r pe r so n is no t just ifiable w he n: (2) The d e fe nd ant , w it h t he int e nt io n o f c ausing d e at h o r se r io us physic al injur y t o t he o t he r pe r so n, pr o v o ke s t he use o f physic al fo r c e by suc h o t he r pe r so n; o r (3) The d e fe nd ant w as t he init ial aggr e sso r , e xc e pt t hat his use o f physic al fo r c e upo n t he o t he r pe r so n und e r t his c ir c umst anc e is just ifiable w he n: (a) His init ial physic al fo r c e w as no nd e ad ly and t he fo r c e r e t ur ne d by t he o t he r is suc h t hat he be lie v e s himse lf t o be in immine nt d ange r o f d e at h o r se r io us physic al injur y; o r (b) He w it hd r aw s fr o m t he e nc o unt e r and e ffe c t iv e ly c o mmunic at e s t o t he o t he r pe r so n his int e nt t o d o so and t he lat t e r ne v e r t he le ss c o nt inue s o r t hr e at e ns t he use o f unlaw ful physic al fo r c e . He r e , t he t r ial c o ur t inst r uc t e d t he jur y c o nsist e nt ly w it h KRS 503.050 and KRS 503.060 in e ac h o f t he inst r uc t io ns r e lat ing t o t he sho o t ings o f Je ffe r so n, Co mpt o n, Ho d ge s, and Ze igle r . In Randolph v. Commonwealth t he Co ur t o f Appe als st at e d as fo llo w s: As t he Ke nt uc ky Supr e me Co ur t e xplaine d , albe it in an unpublishe d d e c isio n, “[t ]he pur po se o f t he init ial aggr e sso r d o c t r ine , like t he ‘pr o v o c at io n d o c t r ine ’, is t o pr e v e nt a d e fe nd ant fr o m inst igat ing a c o ur se o f c o nd uc t t he n c laiming he w as ac t ing in se lf-d e fe nse w he n t hat c o nd uc t unfo ld s.” Hayes v. Commonwealth, 2015-SC-000501-MR, 2017 WL 639387, at *4 (Ky. Fe b. 16, 2017). 566 S.W.3d 576, 578 (Ky. App. 2018). 1 1 KRS 503.055 ad d r e sse s t he no d ut y t o r e t r e at /c ast le d o c t r ine s. 16 Similar ly, as st at e d in Stepp v. Commonwealth, in d e t e r mining w he t he r a limit at io n t o a se lf-d e fe nse inst r uc t io n is pr o pe r , t he t r ial c o ur t must c o nsid e r t he c ir c umst anc e s sur r o und ing t he inc id e nt as a w ho le : It is no t e v e r y asse r t io n o f suc h be lie f t hat is ad e quat e t o suppo r t a ple a o f se lf-d e fe nse . It is t he w ho le c ir c umst anc e s w hic h sur r o und t he inc id e nt t hat must be c o nsid e r e d by t he t r ial jud ge in d e c id ing w he t he r an inst r uc t io n o n se lf-d e fe nse is pr o pe r o r w he t he r an inst r uc t io n o n se lf-d e fe nse w it h limit at io ns is pr o pe r . We hav e he ld t hat be fo r e suc h qualifying inst r uc t io ns ar e pr o pe r t he r e must o f c o ur se be e v id e nc e t o just ify it . In o t he r w o r d s, t he t r ial jud ge must find as a mat t e r o f law t hat t he r e is suffic ie nt e v id e nc e t o just ify suc h limit at io ns be fo r e inst r uc t ing t he jur y. Mayfield v. Commonwealth, Ky., 479 S.W.2d 578 (1972); Criggerv. Commonwealth, Ky., 225 S.W.2d 113 (1949). 608 S.W.2d 371, 374 (Ky. 1980); see also Welch v. Commonwealth, 235 S.W.3d 555, 561 (Ky. 2007). In summar y, fo r a d e fe nd ant t o be t he init ial aggr e sso r , t he d e fe nd ant must use physic al fo r c e pr io r t o any ac t o f pur po r t e d se lf-pr o t e c t io n. KRS 503.060(3)(a). It is t he t r ial c o ur t 's o bligat io n t o “inst r uc t t he jur y upo n e v e r y t he o r y r e aso nably suppo r t e d by t he e v id e nc e .” Sargent v. Shaffer, 467 S.W.3d 198, 203 (Ky. 2015). Re v ie w o f a t r ial jud ge ’s d e c isio n w he t he r t o giv e an inst r uc t io n is und e r an abuse o f d isc r e t io n st and ar d . Id. “The t e st fo r abuse o f d isc r e t io n is w he t he r t he t r ial jud ge 's d e c isio n w as ar bit r ar y, unr e aso nable , unfair , o r unsuppo r t e d by so und le gal pr inc iple s.” Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Thompson, 11 S.W.3d 575, 581 (Ky. 2000) (c it ing Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999)). 17 Ant ho ny ar gue s t hat an init ial aggr e sso r inst r uc t io n w as no t w ar r ant e d in t his c ase fo r t w o r e aso ns. His fir st ar gume nt is so me w hat unc le ar , but it c e nt e r s upo n t he fo llo w ing se nt e nc e t o t he c o mme nt ar y t o KRS 503.050: “This limit at io n applie s t o t he sit uat io n w he r e a d e fe nd ant , not having an intent to cause death or serious physical injury, st ar t s an e nc o unt e r w it h ano t he r and subse que nt ly find s himse lf be lie v ing in a ne e d t o use physic al fo r c e , pe r haps d e ad ly, t o pr o t e c t himse lf fr o m t he o t he r ’s at t ac k.” (e mphasis by Ant ho ny). Fr o m t his se c t io n o f t he c o mme nt ar y, Ant ho ny ar gue s: The Co mmo nw e alt h ’s t he o r y - t hat Er ic Ant ho ny w e nt t o t he apar t me nt “t o ambush ” and “t hat if yo u’r e o ut hunt ing so me bo d y, and t he n w he n yo u ge t t he r e , t he y hav e a w e apo n t o hunt yo u bac k, yo u’r e st ill no t allo w e d t o ar gue se lf-pr o t e c t io n - is an ar gume nt t hat Er ic Ant ho ny had t he “int e nt t o c ause d e at h o r se r io us physic al injur y” all alo ng. At it s c o r e , t his is an ar gume nt t hat Er ic Ant ho ny had c o mmit t e d int e nt io nal mur d e r and no t t hat he ac t e d in se lf-d e fe nse , but w as no t le gally e nt it le d t o d o so be c ause he w as t he init ial aggr e sso r . The r e fo r e , t his is no t , as e xplaine d in t he st at ut o r y c o mme nt ar y, t he c o nt e mplat e d sc e nar io t hat just ifie s qualifying a se lf-pr o t e c t io n d e fe nse w it h t he init ial aggr e sso r inst r uc t io n. See KRS 503.050, Co mme nt ar y. In sum, e v e n ac c e pt ing ar gue nd o t he t he o r y pr o po se d by t he Co mmo nw e alt h, t he t r ial c o ur t pr o v id ing an init ial aggr e sso r jur y inst r uc t io n w as e r r o r in t his c ase . The r e w e r e c o nflic t ing t he o r ie s c o nc e r ning Ant ho ny’s pur po se fo r go ing t o t he apar t me nt o n t he e v e ning o f t he sho o t ings and ho w t he e v e nt s t r anspir e d . Like w ise , t he r e w e r e c o nflic t ing t he o r ie s c o nc e r ning w ho int e nd e d w hat o nc e he go t t he r e and t he sho o t ing st ar t e d . We c o nc lud e t he init ial aggr e sso r inst r uc t io n w as pr o pe r und e r t he c ir c umst anc e s o f t his c ase . Fir st , if, as t he Co mmo nw e alt h sugge st s, Ant ho ny w e nt t he r e ar me d w it h a pist o l lo o king fo r Je ffe r so n t o c o nfr o nt him o v e r t he 18 o ngo ing ho st ilit ie s be t w e e n Ant ho ny and t he Je ffe r so n family and t he n e nt e r e d t he apar t me nt ar me d and w it ho ut anno unc ing himse lf, t he jur y c o uld hav e be lie v e d Ant ho ny w as t he init ial aggr e sso r and no t e nt it le d t o an abso lut e se lf­ pr o t e c t io n d e fe nse e v e n if Je ffe r so n w as t r ying t o pic k up his gun t o sho o t at Ant ho ny. Also , e v e n if t he jur y be lie v e d Ant ho ny had go ne t o t he apar t me nt me r e ly t o d o a d r ug t r ad e w it h Br o w n, t he jur y c o uld st ill hav e be lie v e d Ant ho ny w as t he init ial aggr e sso r be c ause it also c o uld hav e be lie v e d all Je ffe r so n w as d o ing w he n Ant ho ny sho t him w as pic king up his gun aft e r it had ac c id e nt ly falle n t o t he flo o r . In t hat c ase as w e ll, t he jur y c o uld hav e be lie v e d Ant ho ny w as t he init ial aggr e sso r be c ause Je ffe r so n had t ake n no ac t io n o t he r t han pic king up his pist o l w it ho ut any int e nt t o har m Ant ho ny aft e r he had r e t r ie v e d it . Ant ho ny’s se c o nd po int is also so me w hat unc le ar . He ar gue s t hat an init ial aggr e sso r inst r uc t io n w as no t pr o pe r in t his c ase be c ause : But t o t he e xt e nt t hat t his e v id e nc e pr o v e d t hat Er ic Ant ho ny w as lo o king fo r Do nt e Je ffe r so n and had r e aso n t o be lie v e t hat Mr . Je ffe r so n w o uld be at t he apar t me nt , t his e v id e nc e sugge st s t hat Mr . Ant ho ny int e nd e d t o kill Mr . Je ffe r so n be fo r e he w e nt t o t he apar t me nt t hat night , no t t hat he int e nd e d t o c o nfr o nt Mr . Je ffe r so n, w ho in t ur n r e spo nd e d , w hic h t he n c ause d Mr . Ant ho ny t o hav e t o use d e ad ly physic al fo r c e in se lf-d e fe nse . The r e fo r e , t his e v id e nc e d id no t e st ablish t hat Er ic Ant ho ny had ac t e d as an init ial aggr e sso r o n t hat night . See KRS 503.050, Co mme nt ar y. Und e r t his ar gume nt Ant ho ny appe ar s t o d ist inguish be t w e e n w he t he r w he n go ing t o t he apar t me nt t o sho o t Je ffe r so n he w as int e nd ing t o summar ily sho o t Je ffe r so n o r t o fir st c o nfr o nt him t o c r e at e so me so r t o f st and o ff w it h him be fo r e sho o t ing him. By go ing t o t he apar t me nt w it h t he spe c ific int e nt t o use 19 d e ad ly fo r c e against Je ffe r so n in t he fir st inst anc e , a jur o r c o uld c o nc lud e t hat Ant ho ny w as t he init ial aggr e sso r , and any d o ubt r aise d t o t he c o nt r a r y be c ause o f t he d r o ppe d gun and o t he r alt e r nat iv e int e r pr e t at io ns o f t he e v id e nc e , inc lud ing Ant ho ny’s failur e t o c r e at e a st and o ff, aut ho r ize d t he init ial aggr e sso r inst r uc t io n. In sho r t , t he r e w as suffic ie nt e v id e nc e fo r t he jur y t o c o nc lud e t hat Ant ho ny c ame in t he bac k d o o r , sur pr ise d t he o c c upant s, and sho t fo ur o f t he m in a mat t e r o f a fe w se c o nd s and be fo r e t he y had a c hanc e t o d e fe nd t he mse lv e s o r o t he r w ise e v ad e him. Base d o n t hat e v id e nc e , he w o uld hav e be e n t he init ial aggr e sso r . We c o nc lud e t he t r ial c o ur t d id no t abuse it s d isc r e t io n by giv ing an init ial aggr e sso r inst r uc t io n as t o all fo ur sho o t ings. IV. EVIDENCE OF PRIOR SHOOTING Ant ho ny c o nt e nd s t he t r ial c o ur t e r r e d by pe r mit t ing t he Co mmo nw e alt h t o int r o d uc e e v id e nc e t hat in 2010 he had sho t Do nt ae Tho mpso n, w ho w as t he c o usin o f bo t h mur d e r v ic t ims, Je ffe r so n and Co mpt o n. Ant ho ny sho t Tho mpso n in 2010, ad mit t e d and ple d guilt y t o t he assault , w as se nt e nc e d t o pr iso n, and had be e n r e le ase d no t lo ng be fo r e t he June 21 sho o t ings. Ant ho ny file d a pr e t r ial mo t io fi t o e xc lud e t he 2010 sho o t ing pur suant t o KRE 404(b). The t r ial c o ur t d e nie d t he mo t io n. Whe n t he Co mmo nw e alt h r aise d t he issue at t r ial, Ant ho ny again o bje c t e d , and t he t r ial c o ur t again o v e r r ule d t he o bje c t io n. KRE 404(b) pr o v id e s, in r e le v ant par t , as fo llo w s: 20 Ev id e nc e o f o t he r c r ime s, w r o ngs, o r ac t s is no t ad missible t o pr o v e t he c har ac t e r o f a pe r so n in o r d e r t o sho w ac t io n in c o nfo r mit y t he r e w it h. It may, ho w e v e r , be ad missible : (1) If o ffe r e d fo r so me o t he r pur po se , suc h as pr o o f o f mo t iv e , o ppo r t unit y, int e nt , pr e par at io n, plan, kno w le d ge , id e nt it y, o r abse nc e o f mist ake o r ac c id e nt ;.... Ge ne r ally, e v id e nc e o f c r ime s o t he r t han t hat c har ge d is no t ad missible . KRE 404(b); Law so n, Kentucky Evidence Law Handbook, 5t h Ed ., § 2.30[l][a] (2013). Ho w e v e r , e v id e nc e o f o t he r c r ime s o r w r o ngful ac t s may be int r o d uc e d as an e xc e pt io n t o t he r ule if r e le v ant t o pr o v e mo t iv e , o ppo r t unit y, int e nt , plan, kno w le d ge , id e nt it y, o r abse nc e o f mist ake o r ac c id e nt . KRE 404(b)(1). To be ad missible und e r any o f t he se e xc e pt io ns, t he ac t s must be r e le v ant fo r so me pur po se o t he r t han t o pr o v e c r iminal pr e d ispo sit io n, and t he y must be suffic ie nt ly pr o bat iv e t o w ar r ant int r o d uc t io n. Fur t he r , t he pr o bat iv e v alue o f t he e v id e nc e must o ut w e igh t he po t e nt ial fo r und ue pr e jud ic e t o t he ac c use d . Clark v. Commonwealth, 833 S.W.2d 793, 795 (Ky. 1991); Chumbler v. Commonwealth, 905 S.W.2d 488, 494 (Ky. 1995). As t his Co ur t has pr e v io usly st r e sse d , KRE 404(b) is “e xc lusio nar y in nat ur e ,” and as suc h, “any e xc e pt io ns t o t he ge ne r al r ule t hat e v id e nc e o f pr io r bad ac t s is inad missible sho uld be c lo se ly w at c he d and st r ic t ly e nfo r c e d be c ause o f [it s] d ange r o us qualit y and pr e jud ic ial c o nse que nc e s.” O’Bryan v. Commonwealth, 634 S.W.2d 153, 156 (Ky. 1982). To d e t e r mine t he ad missibilit y o f pr io r bad ac t e v id e nc e , w e hav e ad o pt e d t he t hr e e -pr o ng t e st as d e sc r ibe d in Bell v. Commonwealth, 875 S.W.2d 882, 889-91 (Ky. 1994), w hic h e v aluat e s t he pr o po se d e v id e nc e in t e r ms o f: (1) r e le v anc e , (2) pr o bat iv e ne ss, 21 and (3) it s pr e jud ic ial e ffe c t . We r e v ie w t he t r ial c o ur t ’s applic at io n o f KRE 404(b) fo r an abuse o f d isc r e t io n. Anderson v. Commonwealth, 231 S.W.3d 117, 119 (Ky. 2007); Driver v. Commonwealth, 361 S.W.3d 877, 883 (Ky. 2012). “The t e st fo r abuse o f d isc r e t io n is w he t he r t he t r ial [c o ur t 's] d e c isio n w as ar bit r ar y, unr e aso nable , unfair , o r unsuppo r t e d by so und le gal pr inc iple s.” Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999). The r e w as an abund anc e o f e v id e nc e t hat t he 2010 sho o t ing r e sult e d in ho st ilit y and ange r be t w e e n Ant ho ny and Do nt ae Tho mpso n’s e xt e nd e d family, inc lud ing Je ffe r so n. Thus, e v id e nc e c o nc e r ning t he 2010 sho o t ing w as ind ispe nsable t o e xplain t he d ynamic s und e r pinning t his sho o t ing. The t r ial c o ur t d id no t abuse it s d isc r e t io n by pe r mit t ing t he Co mmo nw e alt h t o int r o d uc e e v id e nc e c o nc e r ning t he 2010 sho o t ing. V. CONCLUSION The jud gme nt o f t he Je ffe r so n Cir c uit Co ur t is affir me d . All sit t ing. Mint o n, C.J., Buc kingham, Hughe s, VanMe t e r , JJ., c o nc ur . Ke lle r , J., c o nc ur s in r e sult o nly by se par at e o pinio n, in w hic h Lambe r t and Wr ight , JJ., jo in. KELLER, J., CONCURRING IN RESULT ONLY: I c o nc ur w it h t he majo r it y ’s w e ll-w r it t e n o pinio n r e gar d ing t he init ial aggr e sso r inst r uc t io n and e v id e nc e o f t he pr io r sho o t ing, but I st r o ngly d isagr e e w it h t he majo r it y’s analysis as it r e lat e s t o t he c r o ss-e xaminat io n o f Ant ho ny o n his mo t io n t o suppr e ss. Fo r t he r e aso ns se t fo r t h be lo w , I be lie v e t he mo t io n t o suppr e ss w as 22 impr o pe r impe ac hme nt e v id e nc e and ir r e le v ant , and it w as t he r e fo r e inad missible . I. BACKGROUND Sho r t ly aft e r t he June 21, 2016 sho o t ing, d e t e c t iv e s int e r r o gat e d Ant ho ny. Dur ing t hat int e r r o gat io n, Ant ho ny r e pe at e d ly c laime d t hat he w as no t inv o lv e d in t he mur d e r s. Ho w e v e r , t w o w it ne sse s t o t he sho o t ing, Ashle y Ho d ge s and Tiffany Funk, id e nt ifie d Ant ho ny and plac e d him at t he sc e ne . Ant ho ny w as ult imat e ly c har ge d w it h t w o c o unt s o f mur d e r , amo ng o t he r c har ge s. Pr io r t o his t r ial, Ant ho ny, t hr o ugh c o unse l, file d a mo t io n t o suppr e ss t he o ut -o f-c o ur t id e nt ific at io ns mad e by Ho d ge s and Funk. Mo r e spe c ific ally, t he mo t io n st at e d t hat Ant ho ny so ught t o e xc lud e t he se id e nt ific at io ns be c ause t he se w it ne sse s w e r e no t sho w n a pho t o pak, and inst e ad “e ac h w it ne ss w as sugge st iv e ly sho w n o nly o ne pho t o —a pho t o o f Mr . Ant ho ny—t o id e nt ify t he sho o t e r .” The mo t io n also e xplaine d t hat t he se w it ne sse s had an o ppo r t unit y t o c o nfe r w it h o t he r w it ne sse s pr io r t o be ing sho w n t he pho t o . The r e is no r e fe r e nc e in t he mo t io n t o suppr e ss o r it s suppo r t ing me mo r and um t o Ant ho ny’s init ial d e nial o f inv o lv e me nt ; it ad d r e sse s o nly t he alle ge d ly und uly sugge st iv e nat ur e o f t he id e nt ific at io n pr o c e ss. The mo t io n w as ult imat e ly d e nie d . Lat e r , at t r ial, Ant ho ny pr e se nt e d a se lf-d e fe nse t he o r y in w hic h he ad mit t e d sho o t ing t he t w o v ic t ims, but o nly aft e r o ne o f t he v ic t ims fir st at t e mpt e d t o d r aw his w e apo n o n Ant ho ny. Ant ho ny t e st ifie d t o t his v e r sio n o f e v e nt s at t r ial. Dur ing his c r o ss-e xaminat io n, t he Co mmo nw e alt h que st io ne d 23 Ant ho ny o n t he filing o f his mo t io n t o suppr e ss. Ant ho ny’s c o unse l o bje c t e d o n t he gr o und s t hat t his line o f que st io ning e ffe c t iv e ly punishe d Ant ho ny fo r asse r t ing a c o nst it ut io nal r ight , name ly, t he r ight t o e nsur e t hat t he e v id e nc e at t r ial me e t s c o nst it ut io nal st and ar d s. The o bje c t io n w as o v e r r ule d . The pr o se c ut io n ar gue s t hat it que st io ne d Ant ho ny abo ut his pr e t r ial mo t io n t o suppr e ss t o e xpo se Ant ho ny’s c hange in d e fe nse t he o r ie s and t o t he r e by impe ac h his c r e d ibilit y and r e but his se lf-pr o t e c t io n d e fe nse . The majo r it y c o nc lud e s t hat t his w as “a le git imat e and pr o pe r use o f t he pr e t r ial mo t io n,” as it w as no t pr e se nt e d as e v id e nc e o f guilt , but r at he r t o impe ac h Ant ho ny and r e but his c laims o f se lf-d e fe nse . I d isagr e e . II. ANALYSIS A. Our rules of evidence do not allow the prosecution to attack the credibility of a defendant by referencing the filing of pretrial motions. I t ur n fir st t o t he plain language o f Ke nt uc ky Rule o f Ev id e nc e (“KRE”) 607, w hic h st at e s t hat “[t ]he c r e d ibilit y o f a w it ne ss may be at t ac ke d by any par t y, inc lud ing t he par t y c alling t he w it ne ss.” Blac k’s Law Dic t io nar y d e fine s impe ac hme nt e v id e nc e as “[e jv id e nc e use d t o und e r mine a w it ne ss ’s c r e d ibilit y.” Impeachment Evidence, Blac k’s Law Dic t io nar y (11t h e d . 2019). Thus, impe ac hme nt fo c use s o n t he c r e d ibilit y o f t he witness. Ac c o r d ingly, a par t y may que st io n a w it ne ss o n his o r he r bias, int e r e st , o r ho st ilit y, inc lud ing t he w it ne ss ’s r e lat io nships, pe r so nal and mo ne t ar y int e r e st s in t he o ut c o me o f 24 t he c ase , and susc e pt ibilit y t o c o r r upt ing influe nc e s 2; c e r t ain pr io r c o nv ic t io ns 3; pr io r c o nd uc t 4; and pr io r inc o nsist e nt st at e me nt s.5 The c o mmo n t hr e ad amo ng t he se me t ho d s o f impe ac hme nt is t hat e ac h inv o lv e s t he ac t io ns o r st at e me nt s (o r , in so me limit e d c ase s, sile nc e 6) o f t he witness. This fo llo w s nat ur ally fr o m KRE 607’s aut ho r izat io n t o at t ac k t he witness’s c r e d ibilit y. In t he pr e se nt c ase , ho w e v e r , t he pr o se c ut io n que st io ne d Ant ho ny abo ut t he me r e filing o f t he mo t io n t o suppr e ss, no t his pr io r ac t io ns, st at e me nt s, o r sile nc e . Ant ho ny d id no t t e st ify at t he suppr e ssio n he ar ing and t he r e fo r e d id no t make any st at e me nt s r e gar d ing t he suppr e ssio n mo t io n o r it s filing. In fac t , t he c r o ss-e xaminat io n o n t his issue r e v e ale d t hat t he mo t io n w as a t ac t ic al d e c isio n mad e by d e fe nse c o unse l. Fo r e xample , w he n aske d w he t he r he w as aw ar e “t hr o ugh [his] at t o r ne y” t hat t he r e w e r e “le gal w ays ” t o c halle nge t he po t e nt ial in-c o ur t id e nt ific at io n, he st at e d “I’m no t no , t he at t o r ne y, so I d o n’t , d id n’t kno w any spe c ific s o f ho w it c o uld be c halle nge d .”7 Vid e o Re c o r d (“VR”) 2 See Robert G. Lawson, The Kentucky Evidence Law Handbook § 4.10 (5t h e d . 2013). 3 See KRE 609; Lawson, supra, at § 4.30. 4 See KRE 608; Lawson, supra, at § 4.25. 5 See KRE 613 (pr o v id ing pr e r e quisit e s fo r int r o d uc t io n o f pr io r st at e me nt s); Lawson, supra, at § 4.15. 6 See Cunningham v. Commonwealth, 501 S.W.3d 414, 419 (Ky. 2016) (“Whe n t he e v id e nt iaiy r e quir e me nt s o f KRE 801A(b)(2) ar e sat isfie d , t he par t y’s sile nc e , o r ‘ad o pt iv e ad missio n,’ may be use d fo r bo t h subst ant iv e and impe ac hme nt pur po se s.”). 7 Similar ly, Ant ho ny answ e r e d in t he affir mat iv e w he n t he Co mmo nw e alt h aske d abo ut his inv o lv e me nt in t he d isc o v e r y pr o c e ss: “Yo u ’v e lo o ke d at it all, and yo u ’v e d o ne t hat no t by yo ur se lf but o bv io usly yo u’v e had an at t o r ne y t o he lp yo u be c ause t hat ’s so r t o f t he pr o c e ss, r ight ?” VR 1/5/18, 5:49:10-5:49:18. And again d ur ing c r o ss-e xaminat io n, t he pr o se c ut io n aske d w he t he r Ant ho ny “t hr o ugh [his] at t o r ne y, w it h [his] at t o r ne y,” c o nd uc t e d an inv e st igat io n int o t he fac t s o f t he c ase , t o w hic h Ant ho ny r e plie d , “I be lie v e my at t o r ne y has.” VR 1/5/18, 5:56:44-5:57:12. In 25 1/5/18, 5:52:18-5:52:35. Simply put , t he n, t he pr o se c ut io n at t e mpt e d t o impe ac h Ant ho ny w it h t he ac t io ns and t r ial st r at e gy o f his at t o r ne y. This is no t an ac c e pt able me t ho d o f impe ac hme nt und e r o ur r ule s o f e v id e nc e , as a d e fe nse c o unse l’s t ac t ic al d e c isio ns hav e no be ar ing o n t he d e fe nd ant ’s c r e d ibilit y. The r e fo r e , it s use as impe ac hme nt e v id e nc e w as impr o pe r und e r o ur Rule s o f Ev id e nc e . This Co ur t hint e d at a similar analysis in Neal v. Commonwealth, 95 S.W.3d 843 (Ky. 2003). In t hat c ase , Ne al and his c o -d e fe nd ant , St r o ng, w e r e c har ge d w it h w ant o n mur d e r and fir st -d e gr e e r o bbe r y fo r t he fat al sho o t ing o f a minist e r . At t r ial, Ne al so ught t o impe ac h t he t r ial t e st imo ny o f St r o ng by int r o d uc ing a t ape o f St r o ng’s suppr e ssio n he ar ing t e st imo ny in ano t he r mat t e r . Ne al ar gue d t hat t his e v id e nc e w o uld hav e d e mo nst r at e d t hat St r o ng had blame d Ne al fo r o t he r sho o t ings and t he r e fo r e had a pat t e r n o f blaming him. The Co ur t ult imat e ly he ld t hat t his w as an impr o pe r at t e mpt t o int r o d uc e c o llat e r al impe ac hme nt e v id e nc e . In r e ac hing t hat d e c isio n, t he Co ur t no t e d , It is c le ar t hat Ne al w as no t se e king t o impe ac h St r o ng w it h his pr io r t e st imo ny be c ause St r o ng ne v e r d ir e c t ly blame d Ne al. Inst e ad , Ne al w as t r ying t o impe ac h St r o ng with the actions and trial strategy of his defense counsel at a suppression hearing in ano t he r mat t e r . The r e , d e fe nse c o unse l w as o nly t r ying t o shift t he blame aw ay fr o m St r o ng. r e spo nse , t he pr o se c ut io n st at e d , “Right , I me an, yo u’r e no t able t o d o it , [d e fe nse c o unse l’s] d o ing it fo r yo u, t hat ’s he r jo b.” VR 1/5/18, 5:57:12-5:57:16. As t his line o f que st io ning d e mo nst r at e s, c e r t ain le gal d e c isio ns ar e t ypic ally mad e by t he at t o r ne y, ho pe fully w it h c o nsult at io n w it h his o r he r c lie nt as ne c e ssar y. 26 Id. at 849 (e mphasis ad d e d ). In t his br ie f snippe t fr o m Neal, t he Co ur t hint e d t hat it w as impr o pe r t o impe ac h a d e fe nd ant w it h “t he ac t io ns and t r ial st r at e gy o f his d e fe nse c o unse l.” Id. On t his issue , t he pr e se nt c ase is c le ar ly d ist inguishable fr o m Coulthard v. Commonwealth, 230 S.W.3d 572 (Ky. 2007), t he c ase r e lie d upo n by t he pr o se c ut io n and t he majo r it y. In t hat c ase , it w as pr o pe r t o int r o d uc e e v id e nc e t hat t he d e fe nd ant r e fuse d t o c o nse nt t o finge r pr int ing fo r “pur po se s o f r e but t al and impe ac hme nt o f a se lf d e fe nse c laim.” Id. at 582. Ho w e v e r , t he e v id e nc e at issue in t hat c ase —t he r e fusal t o submit t o finge r pr int ing—st e mme d fr o m t he d e fe nd ant ’s o w n c o nd uc t , i.e . defendant's r e fusal t o submit t o finge r pr int ing. Be c ause t he ac t io ns at issue in Coulthard w e r e t ho se o f t he d e fe nd ant himse lf, t hat Co ur t ne v e r ne e d e d t o c o nsid e r t he pr e ssing issue in t his c ase , name ly, w he t he r a d e fe nd ant c an be impe ac he d w it h t he ac t io ns and t ac t ic al d e c isio ns o f his at t o r ne y. I be lie v e t hat t his issue is c r uc ial in t he pr e se nt c ase , and , fo r t he r e aso ns se t fo r t h in t his o pinio n, it must be d e c id e d in t he ne gat iv e . On t his po int , t he c ase o f People v. Mulero, 176 I11.2d 444 (Ill. 1997), a c ase c it e d by Ant ho ny, is inst r uc t iv e . Alt ho ugh t he majo r it y asse r t s t hat Mulero is d ist inguishable fr o m t he c ase at bar , t he majo r it y fails t o no t e any d ist inc t io n. To t he c o nt r ar y, r e spe c t fully I asse r t t hat Mulero is d ir e c t ly o n po int . In t hat c ase , t he d e fe nd ant ple d guilt y aft e r failing t o suppr e ss he r c o nfe ssio n. At he r se nt e nc ing he ar ing, t he d e fe nd ant st at e d t hat she fe lt r e mo r se imme d iat e ly aft e r c o mmit t ing t he c r ime s and ple d guilt y as a r e sult . The pr o se c ut io n t he n impe ac he d t he d e fe nd ant w it h he r t e st imo ny at he r 27 suppr e ssio n he ar ing, in w hic h she ar gue d t hat he r Miranda r ight s had be e n v io lat e d and he r c o nfe ssio n c o e r c e d . The pr o se c ut io n ut ilize d t his t e st imo ny t o sugge st t hat t he d e fe nd ant ple d guilt y o nly be c ause she c o uld no t suppr e ss he r c o nfe ssio n, no t be c ause she fe lt r e mo r se . The c o ur t fo und t his t o be a pr o pe r fo r m o f impe ac hme nt . It e xplaine d t hat t he pr o se c ut io n “w as pe r mit t e d t o c halle nge d e fe nd ant ’s c r e d ibilit y r e gar d ing he r mo t iv e fo r ple ad ing guilt y by c o mme nt ing o n d e fe nd ant ’s appar e nt lac k o f r e mo r se as e v id e nc e d by he r testimony at t he suppr e ssio n he ar ing.” Id. at 466-67. Ho w e v e r , d ur ing it s c r o ss-e xaminat io n and in c lo sing, t he pr o se c ut o r in Mulero also br o ught up t he filing o f t he mo t io n t o suppr e ss t o ar gue t hat t he d e fe nd ant lie d w he n c laiming r e mo r se . The c o ur t fo und t hat t his “w e nt far be yo nd t he pe r missible c o mme nt ar y t o sugge st t hat d e fe nd ant ’s e xe r c ise o f a c o nst it ut io nal r ight be use d as aggr av at io n e v id e nc e against he r .” Id. at 467. The c o ur t t he r e fo r e he ld t hat t he me r e filing o f t he mo t io n w as ir r e le v ant fo r subst ant iv e and impe ac hme nt pur po se s. Id. at 467. In r e ac hing t hat c o nc lusio n, t he c o ur t no t e d t hat “[s]uc h c o mme nt s hav e a c hilling e ffe c t o n a d e fe nd ant ’s e xe r c ise o f his o r he r c o nst it ut io nal r ight by making asse r t io n o f a par t ic ular r ight c o st ly.” Id. at 462-63. Similar ly, in t he pr e se nt c ase , t he pr o se c ut io n at t ac ke d Ant ho ny’s se lf- d e fe nse c laims by int r o d uc ing his pr io r inc o nsist e nt st at e me nt s as w e ll as e v id e nc e o f t he filing o f a mo t io n t o suppr e ss. Fir st , t he pr o se c ut io n e nt e r e d int o e v id e nc e a v id e o r e c o r d ing o f Ant ho ny’s init ial int e r v ie w w it h po lic e , in w hic h he insist s t hat he w as no t inv o lv e d in t he sho o t ing. Suc h pr io r 28 inc o nsist e nt st at e me nt s c an be use d t o at t ac k a w it ne ss ’s c r e d ibilit y, assuming a pr o pe r fo und at io n is e st ablishe d und e r KRE 613. Ho w e v e r , t he pr o se c ut o r also at t e mpt e d t o use d e fe nse c o unse l’s filing o f a mo t io n t o suppr e ss t o impe ac h Ant ho ny. I c anno t r e c o nc ile t his w it h o ur w e ll-e st ablishe d pr e c e d e nt o n pr o pe r impe ac hme nt e v id e nc e , o r t he ho ld ing in Mulero. The afo r e me nt io ne d d o no t pe r mit t he pr o se c ut io n t o at t ac k t he c r e d ibilit y o f a d e fe nd ant by int r o d uc ing e v id e nc e o f d e fe nse c o unse l’s le gal and t ac t ic al d e c isio ns; t ho se d e c isio ns c anno t be imput e d t o t he d e fe nd ant , ar e no t pe r t ine nt t o his c r e d ibilit y as a w it ne ss, and ar e no t pr o pe r und e r KRE 607, 608 o r 613. Ac c o r d ingly, like t he Mulero c o ur t , I ho ld t hat t he mo t io n t o suppr e ss in t his c ase w as impr o pe r impe ac hme nt e v id e nc e . B. The filing of the motion to suppress was irrelevant for purposes of rebutting Anthony’s claims of self-defense because the motion focused only on Anthony’s due process claims and did not address his defense theories. In t he pr e se nt c ase , t he Co mmo nw e alt h ar gue d t hat Ant ho ny sw it c he d fr o m his init ial d e nial o f inv o lv e me nt t o se lf-d e fe nse o nly be c ause he faile d t o suppr e ss t he o ut -o f-c o ur t id e nt ific at io ns. The majo r it y fur t he r asse r t s t hat t he filing o f t he mo t io n t o suppr e ss c o nt r ad ic t e d Ant ho ny’s e ar lie r c laim t hat he w as no t pr e se nt at t he sc e ne o f t he sho o t ing. Ho w e v e r , t he mo t io n t o suppr e ss is no t inc o nsist e nt w it h e it he r d e fe nse t he o r y. The mo t io n me r e ly alle ge s t hat t he pr o c e d ur e s use d by t he po lic e t o o bt ain t ho se id e nt ific at io ns w e r e und uly sugge st iv e and t he r e fo r e v io lat e d Ant ho ny’s c o nst it ut io nal r ight s. It d o e s no t d e ny t hat Ant ho ny w as pr e se nt at t he sho o t ing, no r d o e s it make any 29 alle gat io ns r e lat e d t o Ant ho ny’s se lf-d e fe nse c laims. In fac t , it make s no r e fe r e nc e w hat so e v e r t o Ant ho ny’s inv o lv e me nt in t he sho o t ings, o r lac k t he r e o f. Simply put , t he mo t io n t o suppr e ss d o e s no t hing mo r e t han alle ge t hat t he o ut -o f-c o ur t id e nt ific at io ns w e r e unc o nst it ut io nally o bt aine d . To be c le ar , I d o no t c o nt e st t he appr o pr iat e ne ss o f que st io ning a d e fe nd ant d ur ing c r o ss-e xaminat io n t o c halle nge t he d e fe nd ant ’s c laims o f se lf- d e fe nse .8 No r d o I c o nt e st t he ge ne r al st at e me nt mad e in Coulthard t hat “in c ir c umst anc e s w he r e suc h e v id e nc e is pr o bat iv e fo r so me pur po se o t he r t han t o simply pe nalize t he d e fe nd ant fo r e xe r c ising a c o nst it ut io nal r ight , t he n no t io ns o f fair play and t he ne e d t o pr e se r v e t he t r ut h-t e st ing func t io ns o f t he ad v e r sar ial pr o c e ss may o ut w e igh t he d e fe nd ant ’s int e r e st in suppr e ssing t he e v id e nc e .” Id. at 584. Ho w e v e r , as Coulthard also st at e s, in c ase s in w hic h “e xe r c ising o ne ’s pr iv ile ge t o be fr e e fr o m w ar r ant le ss se ar c he s is simply no t pr o bat iv e (o r has lo w pr o bat iv e v alue ) t o a d e t e r minat io n o f guilt , [ ] t he d e fe nd ant ’s r ight t o no t be pe nalize d fo r e xe r c ising suc h pr iv ile ge is par amo unt .” Id. In t his c ase , t he c o nst it ut io nal r ight is d iffe r e nt , but t he analysis is t he same . Ant ho ny’s at t o r ne y’s ac t io n o f filing a mo t io n t o suppr e ss e ye w it ne ss id e nt ific at io n simply is no t pr o bat iv e t o a d e t e r minat io n o f 8 See Coulthard, 230 S.W.3d at 583 (“Onc e Appe llant submit t e d hims e lf t o c r o ss-e xaminat io n aft e r c laiming se lf d e fe nse at t r ial, it w as no t o nly appr o pr iat e but ne c e ssar y fo r t he Co mmo nw e alt h t o impe ac h Appe llant ’s c r e d ibilit y and r e but his alle gat io ns.”) (c it ing Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231, 238 (1980)); Hayton v. Commonwealth, 332 S.W.2d 537, 538 (Ky. 1960) (“Whe n a d e fe nd ant in a c r iminal pr o se c ut io n t ake s t he st and as a w it ne ss in his o w n be half, he may be c r o ss-e xamine d as fully and fr e e ly as any o t he r w it ne ss.”) (c it at io ns o mit t e d ). 30 Ant ho ny’s guilt , and t he r e fo r e , t he e v id e nc e o f t he filing o f t hat mo t io n is be ing use d t o pe nalize him fo r e xe r c ising a c o nst it ut io nal r ight and is inad missible . C. The trial court’s error in allowing cross-examination on the filing of the motion to suppress is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Simply put , t he filing o f t he pr e t r ial mo t io n t o suppr e ss is ir r e le v ant fo r impe ac hme nt pur po se s and has lit t le subst ant iv e v alue . Ac c o r d ingly, I must c o nc lud e t hat t he t r ial c o ur t e r r e d in pe r mit t ing c r o ss-e xaminat io n o n t he filing o f t hat pr e t r ial mo t io n. Ho w e v e r , I find t hat e r r o r t o be har mle ss be yo nd a r e aso nable d o ubt .9 The r e is no r e aso nable pr o babilit y t hat t he Co mmo nw e alt h ’s c r o ss-e xaminat io n o n t he mo t io n t o suppr e ss c o nt r ibut e d t o t he jur y’s v e r d ic t . Rat he r , t he jur y he ar d fr o m e ye -w it ne sse s and also he ar d t he d e fe nd ant ’s pho ne c alls mad e fr o m jail. Pe r haps mo r e impo r t ant ly, t he jur y he ar d Ant ho ny’s pr io r st at e me nt s t o po lic e in w hic h he c laime d he w as no t pr e se nt at t he sho o t ing and his c o nflic t ing t e st imo ny at t r ial in w hic h he 9 This analysis r e fle c t s t he “har mle ss be yo nd a r e aso nable d o ubt ” st and ar d applie d t o c o nst it ut io nal e r r o r s. See Ordway v. Commonwealth, 391 S.W.3d 762, 774 (Ky. 2013) (c it at io n o mit t e d ). The Coulthard d e c isio n sugge st s t hat t his is t he appr o pr iat e st and ar d w he n a d e fe nd ant has be e n pe nalize d fo r e xe r c ising a c o nst it ut io nal r ight . Coulthard, 230 S.W.3d at 584; see also Blake v. Commonwealth, 646 S.W.2d 718, 719 (Ky. 1983) (find ing t hat pr o se c ut o r ’s c o mme nt ar y o n d e fe nd ant ’s sile nc e w as har mle ss be yo nd a r e aso nable d o ubt ). Ot he r jur isd ic t io ns also c har ac t e r ize suc h e r r o r s as c o nst it ut io nal, t he r e by r e quir ing t hat t he e r r o r be fo und har mle ss be yo nd a r e aso nable d o ubt . See United States v. Runyan, 290 F.3d 223, 250 (5t h Cir . 2002) (“This c o ur t o r d inar ily analyze s d ue pr o c e ss c laims alle ging impr o pe r c o mme nt o n a d e fe nd ant ’s inv o c at io n o f c o nst it ut io nal r ight s und e r t he har mle ss e r r o r d o c t r ine , d e t e r mining w he t he r t he impr o pe r c o mme nt w as har mle ss be yo nd a r e aso nable d o ubt .” (c it at io ns o mit t e d )); Bosse v. State, 400 P.3d 834, 851 (Okla. Cr im. App. 2017) (find ing similar e r r o r har mle ss be yo nd a r e aso nable d o ubt ); People v. Perry, 68 P.3d 472, 476 (Co lo . App. 2002) (same ); Gomez v. State, 572 So .2d 952, 953 (Fla.Dist .Ct .App. 1990) (r e fe r r ing t o similar e r r o r as “c o nst it ut io nal e r r o r ” and r e mand ing fo r ne w t r ial be c ause e r r o r no t har mle ss be yo nd a r e aso nable d o ubt ). 31 c laime d se lf-d e fe nse . Fur t he r mo r e , t he Co mmo nw e alt h d id no t e xpr e ssly me nt io n t he mo t io n t o suppr e ss in c lo sing, no r d id it ne e d t o ; it w as c umulat iv e in light o f t he o t he r e v id e nc e t hat d isc r e d it e d Ant ho ny’s shift ing d e fe nse s and pr o v e d his guilt . Thus, e v e n w it ho ut t he c r o ss-e xaminat io n o n t he mo t io n t o suppr e ss, t he guilt y v e r d ic t w as suppo r t e d by o v e r w he lming e v id e nc e . Ac c o r d ingly, w hile I be lie v e t hat t he t r ial c o ur t e r r e d in allo w ing c r o ss- e xaminat io n o n t he filing o f t hat mo t io n, I find t hat e r r o r t o be har mle ss be yo nd a r e aso nable d o ubt . III. CONCLUSION Fo r t he r e aso ns se t fo r t h abo v e , I w o uld find t hat t he t r ial c o ur t e r r e d in allo w ing t he pr o se c ut io n t o c r o ss e xamine Ant ho ny o n t he filing o f t he mo t io n t o suppr e ss, but I w o uld also find t hat e r r o r t o be har mle ss. Ne v e r t he le ss, I fe e l c o mpe lle d t o no t e t he po t e nt ial and signific ant impac t o f t he majo r it y’s d e c isio n. It sho uld be no t e d t hat t he majo r it y’s ho ld ing o n t his issue w ill no t be limit e d t o c r iminal c ase s. In almo st e v e r y c iv il c ase , a par t y t e st ifie s aft e r hav ing mo v e d t hr o ugh t he ir at t o r ne y, t o e xc lud e c e r t ain e v id e nc e . If t he y hav e be e n unsuc c e ssful in t he ir at t e mpt t o e xc lud e any o f t he e v id e nc e , t he n t his c ir c umst anc e w ill be c o me fo d d e r fo r c r o ss-e xaminat io n. Like w ise , if w e pe r mit o r c o nd o ne t he at t e mpt e d o r suc c e ssful “impe ac hme nt ” o f a d e fe nd ant w it h his d e fe nse c o unse l’s filing o f a mo t io n t o suppr e ss, w e punish t hat d e fe nd ant fo r t he t ac t ic al d e c isio ns o f his at t o r ne y and pe nalize him fo r at t e mpt ing t o e nfo r c e his c o nst it ut io nally-guar ant e e d r ight s. We also plac e an impo ssible bur d e n o n d e fe nse c o unse l, w ho must e it he r fo r go an at t ac k o n po t e nt ially infir m e v id e nc e 32 o r at t e mpt t o suppr e ss suc h e v id e nc e by filing a mo t io n t o suppr e ss, t he r e by se t t ing t he ir c lie nt up fo r impe ac hme nt . Thus, t o d ay t he majo r it y no t o nly pr e jud ic e s t he ind iv id ual d e fe nd ant but also c r e at e s an unac c e pt able c hilling e ffe c t t hat w ill limit fut ur e d e fe nd ant s ’ abilit y t o e nfo r c e t he ir r ight s w it ho ut punishme nt , w hic h, in e ffe c t , d e pr iv e s t he m o f t ho se r ight s. Lambe r t and Wr ight , JJ., jo in. COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Danie l T. Go ye t t e Lo uisv ille Me t r o Public De fe nd e r ’s Offic e Cic e ly Jar ac z Lambe r t Lo uisv ille Me t r o Public De fe nd e r ’s Offic e Le o Ge r ar d Smit h Lo uisv ille Me t r o Public De fe nd e r ’s Offic e Jo shua Mic hae l Re ho Lo uisv ille Me t r o Public De fe nd e r ’s Offic e COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: And y Be she ar At t o r ne y Ge ne r al o f Ke nt uc ky Jo se ph A. Be c ke t t Assist ant At t o r ne y Ge ne r al 33