Case Title: JOHN FRAZIER HOWARD V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2006-SC-000681-MR

State: kentucky

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Date: 2008-09-18T00:00:00Z

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IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE ; HOWEVER, UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS, RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED OPINION THAT WOULD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 OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE ACTION. 6;VUyrtutr Caurf of ~ft ON APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT V. HONORABLE THOMAS L. CLARK, JUDGE NO . 05-CR-00192 Ky. Const . § 110(2)(b) . MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING 2006-SC-000681-MR RENDERED : SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 T JOHN FRAZIER HOWARD APPELLANT COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE A circuit court jury convicted John Frazier Howard of murder and tampering with physical evidence . He was sentenced to twenty years in prison . In this matter-of-right appeal,' Howard's sole issue is his claim that the trial court committed reversible error when it allowed the Commonwealth to link him with a .22 caliber revolver and ammunition recovered by crime scene investigators, along with a .38 caliber revolver from a dumpster near his home. Howard argues that since a .38 was identified as the murder weapon, introduction of evidence concerning the .22 amounted to highly prejudicial evidence of an uncharged bad act . Because this evidence was relevant to proving. Howard's intent at the time he shot the victim, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing introduction of evidence of the .22 caliber revolver. Therefore, we affirm . A . The Conversations on the Bus, the Shootinq in the Street, and the Trial . While riding on a city bus, Josephine Beatty listened as her son John described a fight that occurred the night before involving his friend Robert Anderson . John told his mother that Anderson had been on the losing end of the fight . Howard, also a passenger on the bus, overheard this remark and laughed audibly . Another passenger who monitored the conversation, Kiki Warner, asked Howard why he laughed . She reminded Howard that Anderson had whipped him in the past . Yet another passenger, Melvin Williams, later testified at trial that Howard reacted angrily to Warner's comments ; and Howard made threatening remarks directed at Warner and Anderson . Howard later told police investigators that Anderson was also present on the bus that day, a point contradicted by witnesses at trial . Later that day, Warner and Williams each separately warned Anderson of the threats Howard made while riding the bus; but Anderson seemed unfazed . That night, Howard confronted Anderson, John, and Williams as they walked down the street near John's house . Howard asked Anderson if Anderson had ever whipped him . According to witnesses, after Anderson responded in the affirmative, Howard drew a revolver and fired at Anderson, who was struck by a bullet in the back while attempting to flee . Anderson died as the result of a single gunshot wound to the back . Police investigating the crime area found two handguns, a .38 and a .22, in a dumpster near Howard's residence . Inside Howard's residence, police found spent shell casings and live ammunition for the .22 . A box of .38 ammunition was also found in Howard's trash can . Before trial, Howard's counsel filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence relating to the .22 on the grounds that the weapon had not been used in the shooting and was, thus, both irrelevant and unduly prejudicial . The trial court denied the motion. At trial, Howard's defense of self-defense was unsuccessful . He was convicted of murder and tampering with evidence . B . Howard Argues the .22 Was Irrelevant and Unduly Prejudicial . Howard argues that uncharged acts evidence relating to the .22 was inadmissible under Kentucky Rules of Evidence (KRE) 404(b), which states evidence of "other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith ." Howard claims that the evidence relating to the .22 was irrelevant since it was undisputed that the .38 was the murder weapon and that the .22 had not been used in the shooting . Howard also claims the .22 evidence is highly prejudicial because "it is impossible to tell whether the jury convicted [Howard] due to the `packing weapons' theory or because it believed beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime of murder." C . No Abuse of Discretion . The decision whether or not to admit evidence of uncharged acts is within the sound discretion of the trial court. In so deciding, the trial court should conduct a three-part analysis to determine the evidence's relevance, probative value, and likelihood of unfair prejudice to the party against whom the evidence is sought to be introduced. The trial court's determination will not be disturbed on appeal unless the reviewing court finds an abuse of discretion. In order to show reversible error, Howard must show that but for the error, he would not have been found guilty . 5 Genuine dispute between the Commonwealth and the criminal defendant regarding intent is a prerequisite for admitting uncharged acts into evidence .6 Under the instructions given in this case, to find Howard guilty of murder, the jury had to find beyond a reasonable doubt, among other things, that Howard intentionally caused the death of the victim and that Howard was not privileged to act in self-protection . While Howard did not testify at trial, his defense counsel attempted to convince the jury that Howard shot the victim out of fear for his own life . Accordingly, the issue of Howard's intent was in genuine dispute . Here, the record reflects that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the evidence relating to the .22 offered to show Howard's intent Commonwealth v . English , 993 S .W.2d 941 (Ky . 1999) . Bell v. Commonwealth , 875 S.W.2d 882 (Ky . 1994) . Matthews v . Commonwealth, 163 S.W.3d 11, 19 (Ky. 2005) . Stanford v . Commonwealth 734 S.W.2d 781, 787 (Ky . 1987) Walker v. Commonwealth , 52 S.W.3d 533, 535-6 (Ky . 2001), citing R . LAwsON, THE KENTUCKY EVIDENCE LAw HANDBOOK, § 2.25[2], p . 124 (4th ed. 2003) . or plan to kill the victim . Under KRE 404(b)(1), evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts may be admissible as probative of "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident . ,7 Furthermore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the probative value of the evidence relating to the .22 exceeded any prejudicial effect . $ Having determined the evidence was admissible under KRE 404(b)(1), we need not address the Commonwealth's alternate argument that the evidence was admissible under KRE 404(b)(2) . For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed . All sitting . All concur. ' See Billings v . Commonwealth . Ky., 843 S.W.2d 890 (1992) . KRE 403. COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT : Karen Shuff Maurer Assistant Public Advocate Department of Public Advocacy 100 Fair Oaks Lane, Suite 301 Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE : Jack Conway Attorney General of Kentucky Courtney J . Hightower Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Criminal Appellate Division 1024 Capital Center Drive Frankfort, Kentucky 40601-8204