Title: ERIC ANTHONY DAVIS V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

State: kentucky

Issuer: Kentucky Supreme Court

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IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER, UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS, RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED OPINION THAT WOULD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 OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE ACTION . ,;VUyrrMr (~Vurf of 2008-SC-000406-MIZ MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING RENDERED : NOVEMBER 25, 2009 NOT TO BEYPUBVSHE MAU ON APPEAL FROM MCCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT V. HONORABLE CRAIG Z. CLYMER, JUDGE NO. 07-CR-00366-003 COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE Eric Anthony Davis appeals as a matter of right from a May 16, 2008, judgment of the McCracken Circuit Court convicting him of second-degree assault and being a first-degree persistent felony offender . Appellant was sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. Because Appellant was not entitled to an instruction on imperfect self defense, we affirm. The conviction in this case stemmed from the beating of Dennis Coley, which occurred at approximately 2:30 a.m . on May 8, 2007, at a trailer park in Paducah, Kentucky . Testimony at trial established the following events leading up to and surrounding the assault. On the afternoon of May 7, 2007, Appellant, who lived at the trailer park, borrowed a truck belonging to Luther "Darrell" Haney to retrieve a tree stump. Coley, who also lived at the trailer park, rode along with Appellant to retrieve the stump . Haney (who was deceased at the time of trial) allegedly had several thousand dollars in cash, which he had recently received from J.G . Wentworth, i in the console of the truck. Later that day, Shane Kimble, who lived at the trailer park as well, left with Haney in the truck to do a painting job at, 1-laney's house in Ballard County . Coley went along too. After they arrived, Harvey discovered that his money was missing from the truck. Haney suspected Coley or Appellant, because they had used Haney's truck earlier to retrieve the tree stump . Coley denied he had the money, and Haney turned his suspicion to Appellant. That evening, Haney and Coley (both ofwhom were at Haney's home) exchanged angry phone calls with Appellant (who was at home at the trailer park) over the missing money. Appellant denied he had the money. Kimble, who was also at Haney's home when the phone calls were made, told police that he overheard Coley tell Appellant that he was going to kill him (Appellant) . At approximately 2:30 a.m., Kimble and Coley arrived back at the trailer park in Harvey's truck. Haney was not with them. Kimble parked in front of his (Kimble's) trailer. Two other residents, Christy Parrish and Ronnie Davidson, came out of a nearby trailer to chat. Coley was intoxicated, and sat on the tailgate of the truck. Coley had stumbled getting out of the truck, and Kimble asked Parrish to watch him so that he would not fall again while Kimble walked to his father Bill Kingston's trailer, which Kimble estimated was about 75-100 yards away. Appellant lived with Kingston. Kimble testified that Appellant was in the trailer, "all hyped up," and that Appellant immediately A company known for paying cash for settlements. asked him if Coley was there. Kimble replied that he was, and Appellant rushed out the back door to where Coley, facing away from the trailer, was sitting on the tailgate . Kimble testified that he did not see a hatchet in Appellant's hand, but that everything happened very fast . Kimble testified that he saw Appellant pick Coley up and slam him on the ground, after which Appellant came back to Kingston's trailer, grabbed a shovel, demanded the keys to the truck, and said something to the effect that Kimble would never see Coley again . Kimble testified that Appellant looked "wild" and he gave him the keys. Appellant returned in the truck about an hour later. Kimble went to his own trailer for a couple of hours, and then went back to Kingston's trailer in the morning. Haney had called wanting his truck returned. Kimble testified that the back of the truck had blood in it. Kimble picked Haney up in the truck, and the two drove to a car wash and washed out the blood. Parrish and Davidson testified that they were standing by the truck, parked in front of Kimble's trailer, talking to Coley, when they heard a lot of arguing going on in Kingston's trailer. Both estimated Kingston's trailer was about 100 feet away from Kimble's . 2 According to both, Appellant suddenly came running out of the back door of the trailer toward the truck with a hatchet in his hand up in the air. Appellant swerved around Parrish and Davidson and went straight for Coley. Parrish testified that Appellant ran up behind Coley and struck him in the back of the head with the hatchet. Parrish testified that as Appellant ran towards Coley he said "this is what happens to 2 Differing somewhat from Kimble's estimate . snitches." Parrish testified that Coley was facing the other way and did not see Appellant coming. Parrish and Davidson ran inside a nearby trailer for safety and watched the remainder of the attack out the window. Parrish testified that Coley fell- to the ground after the first blow from the hatchet, after which Appellant continued to hit and kick him. Davidson testified that after Coley was on the ground, Appellant continued to attack him with the hatchet, as well as kick him. Parrish and Davidson estimated the attack lasted about 15-20 minutes. Both testified that at the end of the attack, Appellant picked up Coley's arm and dropped it, as if to see if he was dead . Both recalled then seeing Appellant go back to Kingston's trailer, come back with a shirt on, throw Coley in the back of the truck, put a shovel in the cab, and take off . Davidson testified that Appellant returned about an hour later, without Coley. Coley, covered in dried blood, was found on the morning of May 9, by the owner of a farm in a tool shed on his property. Coley told the farmer that "they" had beaten him and thrown him out onto the gravel road . At Coley's request, the farmer gave him a ride home . Coley was eventually taken to the emergency room by police . At the hospital, Coley was diagnosed with severe head injuries, including a large scalp laceration in the front of his head, bleeding in his brain, and bruising and contusions to multiple areas of his brain in the frontal lobes. He was also diagnosed with fractures of both orbital bones, jaw fractures, broken ribs, and broken toes . Medical testimony at trial established that Coley's injuries were consistent with blunt force trauma, and that his head injuries were consistent with having been hit with a heavy object . Coley was hospitalized for approximately one month, after which he was discharged to a rehabilitation facility, because he was unable to care for himself . Coley testified at trial, but, due to his brain injuries, could not remember anything of significance regarding the attack or the events preceding it. Appellant testified in his own defense, as follows . On the afternoon of May 7, 2007, Appellant borrowed Haney's truck to retrieve a tree stump. Coley rode along. Later that day, Kimble, Coley, and Haney left in the truck to paint Haney's house. Around 9 p.m., Appellant started getting calls from Haney, accusing him of stealing his money. Appellant denied stealing the money. Appellant and Haney called back and forth arguing. About 1 a.m., Haney called and told Appellant "that money's coming up or I'm killing both of you" (apparently referring to Appellant and Coley) . Appellant testified that he took the threat seriously because Harvey is a dangerous man who runs with a motorcycle gang, that Harvey had made statements in the past that he would kill anybody who stole his money, and that Haney had bragged about killing people who had stolen money from him. Appellant testified that he called Haney back, and Coley answered, told Appellant "you know you stole that money and we're headed out there and we're killing you," and hung up. Appellant tried to call back, but there was no answer . Appellant claimed he got scared when Kimble came back to Kingston's trailer, because he knew Kimble, Coley, and Haney had been together . Appellant thought that he was about to be killed. Appellant testified that he that he ran out of the trailer, furious at Coley for setting him up to be killed, and jumped on him: ._--Appellant admitted that he "blindsided" Coley, but denied that he hit Coley with a hatchet. Rather, Appellant claimed that he hit Coley with his hands three or four times and might have body slammed him. Appellant testified that he then ran back to his trailer, told Kimble to give him the keys, put. on a shirt, went back and frisked Coley for weapons and threw him in the back of the truck. Coley was unconscious . Appellant admitted putting a shovel in the truck, but claimed he planned to use it to scare Coley to make him tell him where the money was. Appellant drove around until Coley came to, then pulled off the road, grabbed the shovel, put it in the ground, and cursed Coley for stealing the money and blaming him (Appellant), setting him up to be killed by Haney. Appellant testified that Coley got scared and told him where the money was. Appellant claimed he left Coley on the side of the road, awake, with his cell phone, whiskey, and cigarettes, and drove away . Appellant testified he then called Haney and told him where Coley said the money was and where Coley was. Appellant did not know if Haney found the money. Appellant explained his actions in attacking Coley as being for the purpose of saving his own life - that he had to get Coley to tell him where the money was or Haney would kill him. The jury was instructed on first-degree assault, second-degree assault, first- and second- degree assault under extreme emotional disturbance, and fourth-degree assault. Defense counsel tendered an instruction on imperfect self defense, which was denied by the trial court. The jury found Appellant guilty of second-degree assault. Additionally, Appellant was found guilty of being a first-degree persistent felony offender (PFO 1) . Appellant was sentenced to 10 years for the assault conviction, enhanced to 20 years for the PFO 1. Appellant raises, as the sole issue on appeal, that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct on imperfect self defense. Appellant contends that it was clear from the evidence that he felt the need to act in self-defense out of fear that Haney and Coley were going to kill him, and that had the jury been instructed on imperfect self defense, it is possible that he would have been convicted only of fourth-degree assault. KRS 503.050(1) provides that "[t]he use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by the other person." "The justification is also available when there is a mistaken belief in the existence of use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by another." Lickliter v. Commonwealth, 142 S.W.3d 65, 71 (Ky. 2004) (citing KRS 503.120(1)) . The concept of imperfect self defense arises where the mistaken belief is wantonly or recklessly held. "[A] mistaken belief in the need to act in self-protection does not affect the privilege to act in self- protection unless the mistaken belief is so unreasonably held as to rise to the level of wantonness or recklessness with respect to the circumstance then being encountered by the defendant." Commonwealth v. Halter , 41 S.W.3d 828, 841-42 (Ky. 2001) (citing Elliott v. Commonwealth, 976 S.W.2d 416, 420 (Ky. 1998)) . "Imperfect self defense" does not provide for complete -exoneration ; but instead allows a jury to convict a defendant for a lesser offense, one for which wantonness or recklessness is the culpable mental state. Elliott, 976 S.W.2d at 420. Therefore, if the charged offense is first-degree assault, a wantonly held belief in the need for self-protection reduces the offense to second-degree assault and a recklessly held belief reduces the offense to fourth-degree assault. See id. at 418 n. l and 420 n.3. A criminal defendant is entitled to an instruction on any lawful defense supported by the evidence. Thomas v. Commonwealth, 170 S.W.3d 343, 348- 49 (Ky. 2005) . In reviewing a claim of error for the failure to give ajury instruction, an appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party who requested the instruction . Id . at 347 . Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Appellant, we conclude that he was not entitled to an instruction on imperfect self defense. While there was evidence that Coley had earlier threatened Appellant's life over the phone, at the time of the attack, there was no evidence to support even a wantonly or recklessly held mistaken belief by Appellant that the use of unlawful physical force by Coley was imminent . Rather, it was uncontroverted that when Appellant attacked Coley, Coley was simply sitting on the tailgate of the truck, some distance away from Appellant's trailer, facing the other way. Coley had made no attempt to approach Appellant, rather, it was Appellant who ran straight for Coley and attacked him. Appellant himself admitted he "blindsided" Coley. Further, the gist of Appellant's-own testimony was that he assaulted, Coley not out of fear of Coley, but out of fear of Haney - that he attacked Coley for the purpose of getting Coley to tell him where the money was, so that Haney would not kill him (Appellant) . However, self defense does not allow an assault on a non-aggressor to prevent an attack by a third party. Self defense must be directed toward the aggressor. See KRS 503.050 . Accordingly, Appellant's belief that Haney was going to kill him, even if recklessly or wantonly held, would not support the giving of an imperfect self defense instruction in this case, as Appellant's actions were against a non-aggressor, Coley. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying the imperfect self defense instruction . The judgment of the McCracken Circuit Court is affirmed . All sitting. All concur . COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Karen Shuff Maurer Assistant Public Advocate Department of Public Advocacy 100 Fair Oaks Lane, Suite 302 Frankfort, KY 40601 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Jack Conway Attorney General Matthew Robert Krygiel Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Office of Criminal Appeals 1024 Capital Center Drive Frankfort, KY 40601