Case Title: ANNE M. REARDON V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2014-SC-000646-MR

State: kentucky

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Date: 2017-02-16T00:00:00Z

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION

THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED “NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.”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THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE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UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS,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BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED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: FEBRUARY 16, 2017
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Supreme Court of Kentucky

2014-SC-000646-MR
ANNE M. REARDON APPELLANT
(ON APPEAL FROM MEADE CIRCUIT COURT

v. HONORABLE BRUCE T. BUTLER, JUDGE,
NO. 13-CR-00134

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE,

‘MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
AFFIRMING

A circuit court jury convicted Anne M. Reardon of the wanton murder of
her husband, Danny Reardon, and recommended a twenty-year sentence,
which the trial court imposed.

Reardon appeals the resulting judgment as a matter of right.! She argues
that two trial errors—both admittedly unpreserved for appellate review—
resulted in palpable error warranting reversal of the judgment. She contends
these errors occurred when the trial court allowed the Commonwealth's
witness to: (1) deliver testimony that he was not qualified as an expert to give

when he observed that the murder weapon did not appear to have a “hair

 

Ky. Const. § 110(2)(0).
‘rigger’; and (2) testify about the frequency of accidental discharges by semi-

automatic pistols and revolvers.

1. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.
Reardon and Danny had a tumultuous marriage. Danny suffered from

bi-polar disorder and was, at least at one time, taking medication to treat his
condition. Danny had a history of violence, and although Reardon’s daughter
testified she had never seen Danny strike Reardon, she recounted to police an
incident when Danny had pinned Reardon on the couch.

(On the night Danny was killed, the two had been arguing for most of the
day. Reardon testified that at the end of the evening she made up the couch for
Danny to sleep on and returned to her room for bed. But, according to
Reardon, she returned to the living room to confront Danny about his behavior
and encourage him to be “nice,” because they had plans scheduled for the next
several days. Reardon testified that Danny did not react well to this
conversation and responded that it was taking everything he had to refrain
from killing her.

After that conversation, Reardon retreated to her bedroom where she
kept a .38 revolver under her pillow. She testified that she believed she emptied
the revolver of bullets before returning with it to the living room, She told
Danny to leave the home. He laughed and told her that she better shoot him

because, if she did not kill him, he would kil

 

her. He then laid his head on the

armrest of the couch,
Reardon then claims that as she turned to leave the living room, the .38 caliber

 

revolver accidentally fired a bullet that struck Danny in the top of the head and
Killed him.

At trial, Reardon's defense was that the shooting was accidental. She
argued that the gun accidentally discharged and that the revolver had a “hair
trigger.” To dispute Reardon's defense, the Commonwealth called Detective
Gabhart to testify. It is Detective Gabhart’s testimony that is in dispute in this

appeal. The jury convicted and sentenced her. She now appeals to this Court.

I, ANALYSIS,
A. Standard of Review.
Conceding that the alleged trial errors are unpreserved, Reardon

requests review under Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr") 10.26,2

 

‘under which relief may be granted upon a showing of “palpable error."? A
finding of palpable error requires a showing that the alleged error affected the
“substantial rights” of a defendant, for whom relief may be granted “upon a
determination that manifest injustice has resulted from the error."* And to find
‘manifest injustice, the reviewing court must conclude that the error so
seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceeding

as to be “shocking or jurisprudentially intolerable.”>

2 Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure 10.26.
oid.
sid.
5 Martin v. Commonwealth, 207 8.W.34 1, 4 (Ky. 2006).

3
B. Detective Gabhart’s response to a question concerning the “Hair
‘Trigger” Nature of the Revolver was not Improper Expert Testimon}

 

Reardon asserts that Detective Gabhart gave improper expert testimony
when he testified that the revolver used to shoot Danny did not have a “hair

trigger.
On the witness stand, Detective Gabhart explained the differences

 

between a semi-automatic handgun and a revolver. He discussed the
differences in how the weapons are loaded, how they are fired, and the

mechanics behind the bullet fired from each weapon. While on the stand,
Detective Gabhart dry-fired the revolver—meaning he pulled the trigger as if he
were discharging the weapon. After doing so, the Commonwealth asked, “Is

(sic) that feel to you like a hair trigger?” Detective Gabhart responded, “No sir,
not at all.”

Reardon argues Detective Gabhart’s testimony that he did not believe the
murder weapon exhibited a hair trigger was the type of opinion testimony that
is properly limited to a witness who qualifies as a firearms expert. The
Commonwealth argues that Detective Gabhart’s testimony was lay-witness
opinion testimony allowed under Kentucky Rule of Evidence 701.¢

We would perhaps be skeptical of the ability of this witness to render a
conclusory opinion as to whether the murder weapon had a trigger so delicately
adjusted as to release the cock at the slightest touch.” But that is not what
happened here. In our view of the testimony, this response to the prosecutor's

© KRE 701,
? Hair Trigger, Webster's Third New International Dictionary (3rd ed. 1961).
question was simply this witness's observation—a comment from a witness
who had some professional familiarity with handguns—that he did not detect
the presence of a hair trigger. The witness did not offer expert opinion, as
Reardon insists. So Reardon fails here to establish any error and certainly fails
to convince us of an error affecting substantial rights resulting in manifest
injustice.

C. Detective Gabhart’s Testimony of Never Hearing of Revolver

Accidentally Discharging was Likely Irrelevant But Does Not
Constitute Palpable Error.

Reardon next argues that Detective Gabhart gave improper testimony
when he testified that he had never known a revolver to misfire. Reardon
argues that this was once again expert testimony and improper. The
Commonwealth asserts that this was simply a statement of fact given from
Detective Gabhart’s personal knowledge. The testimony in question happened
during the following exchange:

Commonwealth: Let me ask you, as far as the semi-automatic

Pistol that you carry on yourself that feeds them through the

‘magazine, are you aware of or have you ever heard of one of those

misfiring?

Witness: A semi-automatic?

Commonwealth: Yes.

Witness: Uh, yes, I have.

Commonwealth: Have you ever heard of a revolver misfiring?

Witness: Uh, not to my knowledge. No,

Reardon argues that this testimony was expert testimony and improper.

‘The Commonwealth rebuts this argument saying that the testimony was simply
a statement of fact, and did not fall under KRE 701 or 702. We agree that the
testimony was not given as expert testimony, but the testimony was improper.

Evidence used during trial must conform to KRE 401.* KRE 401 provides
that evidence introduced must be relevant.? Relevant evidence is “evidence
having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to
the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be
without the evidence."!0

Detective Gabhart's testimony did not satisfy KRE 401. His testimony
fails the relevancy equation because it is simply a broad observation that is not
tailored to the facts at issue. The issue in Reardon's case was whether the gun
used accidentally discharged. Detective Gabhart’s testimony does nothing to
lead a jury to determine whether the revolver in question had more or less of a
tendency to accidentally discharge. Instead, his testimony involves the
accidental discharge of the revolvers of which he is aware, not taking into
account the different models, safety features, calibers, and manufacturers.
Furthermore, Reardon notes that there was no evidence showing that Detective
Gabhart had done any research on the issue or was particularly aware of
accidental discharges of revolvers. Detective Gabhart’s generalization of the
likelihood of accidental discharge based on his experience fails to advance
resolving the question at hand, whether it is more or less probable that,

Reardon's revolver accidentally discharged.

 

* KRE 401,
oid.
wid
Furthermore, even if the testimony were to be considered relevant, KRE
403 provides a balancing test when deciding if relevant evidence should be
excluded.!! KRE 403 provides “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if,
itis probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of undue
prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury...”!? Detective
Gabhart's testimony likely fails the balancing test and provides testimony
which is far more prejudicial than probative.

While Detective Gabhart’s unobjected-to testimony was likely irrelevant,
we do not have the benefit of the trial court’s KRE 403 analysis. But we are
satisfied nevertheless that Reardon has failed to establish that the potential

error rises to the level of palpable error.

m1. CONCLUSION.

For the reasons state above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

All sitting. All concur.

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:

John Gerhart Landon
Department of Public Advocacy

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:

Andy Beshear
‘Attorney General of Kentucky

Jason Bradley Moore
Assistant Attorney General

1 KRE 403.
a