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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION

THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED “NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.”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THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE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UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS,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BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED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: MARCH 25, 2021

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Supreme Court of Kentucky

2019-SC-0253-MR

BRETT CARROLL APPELLANT

ON APPEAL FROM WARREN CIRCUIT COURT

V. HONORABLE JOHN GRISE, JUDGE 

NO. 15-CR-00518

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT

AFFIRMING

A Warren Circuit Court jury convicted Appellant Brett Carroll of firstdegree manslaughter, two counts of tampering with physical evidence, and of 

being a second-degree persistent felony offender (PFO). Carroll was sentenced 

to thirty-five years’ imprisonment and now appeals to this Court as a matter of 

right. Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b). On appeal, Carroll argues that the trial court 

committed palpable error by failing to grant his motion for a directed verdict of 

acquittal on all charges. After review, we affirm the trial court. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On September 7, 2014, an officer with the Bowling Green Police 

Department discovered Shawn Yonko’s body in his apartment while performing 

a welfare check. Due to extensive decomposition, Yonko’s cause of death was 

not readily ascertainable. An autopsy by the Kentucky Medical Examiner’s 
2

office determined that Yonko died from a stab wound to the chest that

punctured his heart. Based on the volume of blood in the chest cavity, the 

medical examiner determined Yonko bled to death shortly after being stabbed

but concluded the wound would not have caused Yonko to be immediately 

immobilized. The medical examiner believed Yonko died 3 to 7 days before his 

body was found.

The police investigation determined Yonko was last seen alive by a friend 

on the evening of August 31, 2014, and that the last outgoing call from Yonko’s 

cell phone occurred at 8:23 p.m. that same night. Detective Buss, the lead 

homicide detective on the case, turned his investigative attention to Yonko’s 

neighbor, Chrystal Wright, after learning she and two men—Robert Wright and 

Appellant, Brett Carroll—had been stopped by another officer on the night of 

August 31 for driving with a cracked windshield.

Detective Buss first spoke to Robert Wright. He told Buss he had spent 

time at Chrystal’s apartment on August 31 with Chrystal, Carroll, and another 

woman, Tabitha Robinson, but claimed his girlfriend picked him up that 

evening and drove him to Louisville. Buss also contacted Tabitha. Tabitha

made statements to Buss indicating that Robert and Carroll had been involved 

in a fight with Yonko. During his investigation, Buss also received a tip from 

the mother of Robert’s girlfriend that Carroll and Robert may have been 

involved in a crime. 
3

Armed with this information, Detective Buss confronted Chrystal. 

Although she initially denied having any information about Yonko’s death, she 

relented and gave police a recorded statement. Chrystal told police that she, 

Robert, Carroll, and Tabitha spent the evening of August 31, 2014, drinking at 

her apartment. At some time during the evening, Carroll went outside to use 

the phone. When he came back inside, he told the others he had “just got into 

it outside” with another man. Chrystal stated that Robert, who had been 

drinking and was intoxicated, went outside to confront the person with whom

Carroll had an altercation and that she and Carroll followed him. 

Outside of the apartment, Crystal observed Robert arguing with her 

neighbor Yonko. The altercation between the two men turned physical and 

Carroll got involved. Chrystal saw Carroll run toward Yonko and hit him in the 

chest. Once Carroll hit Yonko in the chest, the fight ended. Chrystal heard 

Yonko make a remark about getting his “heat,” which she understood to mean 

his gun, and saw him walk back into his apartment. Chrystal said the group 

quickly left in her car after the fight, and Carroll instructed her to drive to his 

mother’s house. Once there, the group went into Carroll’s bedroom. In the 

bedroom, Chrystal said Carroll told the group he had stabbed Yonko and that 

Carroll and Robert changed out of the clothes they were wearing. Carroll took 

the clothes outside, and Chrystal overheard his mother ask him why he was 

starting a fire. Chrystal said Carroll threatened to kill the others if they told 

anyone he had stabbed Yonko.
4

After obtaining Chrystal’s statement, Detective Buss again spoke to 

Robert, who decided to cooperate with the investigation and provided a 

statement. Robert admitted his girlfriend had not taken him to Louisville as he 

initially told Buss and gave a statement corroborating much of Chrystal’s

account of the evening of August 31. Thereafter, Carroll was indicted for 

murder, two counts of tampering with physical evidence, and with being a 

second-degree PFO. 

At trial, Chrystal, Tabitha, and Robert all testified for the 

Commonwealth. Chrystal’s trial testimony was mostly consistent with her prior 

statements to police. Tabitha testified she saw Carroll with a bloody knife in 

Chrystal’s car after the group fled the apartment. She also said she observed 

Carroll throw something out of Chrystal’s car window. She assumed it was the 

knife because she did not see Carroll with the knife after that. While the group 

was at Carroll’s mother’s house, Tabitha overheard Carroll say he planned to 

burn the clothes he and Robert had been wearing on August 31. Robert 

testified Carroll admitted to the others in Chrystal’s car to stabbing Yonko. He 

also saw Carroll throw a knife out of Chrystal’s car window. Robert stated

Carroll gave him clothes to change into at his mother’s house, so Carroll could 

burn the clothes they had worn during the fight.

Carroll’s sister Lindsey also testified at his trial. Lindsey claimed she 

could not recollect Carroll coming to their mother’s house on August 31, 2014, 

but the Commonwealth impeached her testimony with a previous statement

she gave to police. In that statement, Lindsey said she remembered a night 
5

when she was watching movies at her mother’s house and that Carroll, a “Rob 

guy,” and “a black girl and some white girl” came in “trashed.” Lindsey said 

the group went straight to Carroll’s bedroom when they arrived but emerged 

later and burned something. 

Carroll’s defense was to cast Robert—not Carroll—as the likely culprit for 

Yonko’s death and painted the Commonwealth’s proof as a “contrived story by 

three felons.” Although defense counsel elicited concessions that called the 

credibility of Chrystal, Robert, and Tabitha’s testimony into question, the jury 

disagreed with Carroll’s alternative-perpetrator theory and found him guilty of 

first-degree manslaughter,1 two counts of tampering with physical evidence

(one count for throwing the knife out of Chrystal’s car and one count for 

burning the clothes), and of being a second-degree PFO. The trial judge 

sentenced Carroll to thirty-five years’ imprisonment in accordance with the 

jury’s recommendation. 

ANALYSIS

Carroll’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying 

his motion for directed verdict of acquittal on the charges of first-degree 

manslaughter and tampering with physical evidence. As an initial matter, 

Carroll concedes that he did not properly preserve this issue for appeal because 

he failed to renew his motions at the close of evidence in compliance with CR2

 

1 Although Carroll was indicted for murder, the trial court also instructed the 

jury on first-degree manslaughter, a lesser-included offense. 

2 Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure. 
6

50.01. Consequently, we review the trial court’s denial of Carroll’s motions for 

palpable error under RCr3 10.26. “Palpable error affects the substantial rights 

of the party and results in manifest injustice. Furthermore, an appellant 

claiming palpable error review must show that the error was more likely than 

ordinary error to have affected the jury.” Boyd v. Commonwealth, 439 S.W.3d 

126, 129-30 (Ky. 2014). A party claiming palpable error must show a 

“probability of a different result or error so fundamental as to threaten a 

defendant’s entitlement to due process of law.” Martin v. Commonwealth, 207 

S.W.3d 1, 3 (Ky. 2006). 

A trial court considers a motion for directed verdict under the standard 

set out in Commonwealth v. Benham, 816 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1991), which holds:

On motion for directed verdict, the trial court must draw all fair 

and reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the 

Commonwealth. If the evidence is sufficient to induce a reasonable 

juror to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is 

guilty, a directed verdict should not be given. For the purpose of 

ruling on the motion, the trial court must assume that the 

evidence for the Commonwealth is true, but reserve[] to the jury 

questions as to the credibility and weight to be given to such

testimony.

Id. at 187. “On appellate review, the test of a directed verdict is, if under the 

evidence as a whole, it would be clearly unreasonable for a jury to find guilt, 

only then the defendant is entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal.” Id. 

Under KRS 507.030(1)(a), “[a] person is guilty of manslaughter in the 

first degree when . . . [w]ith intent to cause serious physical injury to another 

 

3 Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure.
7

person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person.” Although 

Carroll argues that the Commonwealth did not present substantial evidence 

that he killed Yonko, we disagree. 

“A defendant’s guilt may be established by circumstantial evidence and 

any inferences that may justifiably be drawn therefrom.” David v.

Commonwealth, 795 S.W.2d 942, 947 (Ky. 1990). While it is true that the exact 

time of Yonko’s death is not known, the medical examiner estimated his death 

fell within a range of days that was circumstantially consistent with other 

evidence presented by the Commonwealth that supported that Yonko likely 

died on the evening of August 31 as a result of being stabbed by Carroll. Police 

investigation found that Yonko last used his cell phone the night of August 31, 

the same night he was last seen alive by a friend. Witnesses for the 

Commonwealth testified that Carroll was involved in a fight with Yonko on the 

night of August 31, hit Yonko in the chest, and later confessed to stabbing

Yonko. Witnesses observed Carroll with a bloody knife after the fight. All trial 

testimony was consistent with the medical examiner’s conclusion that Yonko 

bled to death after being stabbed in the chest. There was sufficient evidence to 

convince a reasonable juror that Carroll acted with intent to cause serious 

physical injury to Yonko and, did in fact, cause his death. KRS 507.030(1)(a).

Similarly, Carroll was not entitled to a directed verdict on the charges of 

tampering with physical evidence. KRS 524.100(1)(a) states in relevant part: 

(1) A person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence when, 

believing that an official proceeding is pending or may be instituted, 

he:
8

(a) Destroys, mutilates, conceals, removes or alters physical 

evidence which he believes is about to be produced or used in the 

official proceeding with intent to impair its verity or availability in 

the official proceeding; 

. . . 

At Carroll’s trial, Tabitha and Robert testified that they saw Carroll with 

a knife following the altercation with Yonko and that he threw the knife out of 

Chrystal’s vehicle after leaving the scene. Chrystal, Tabitha, and Robert all 

provided testimony that Carroll burned the clothes he and Robert wore during 

the fight. The Commonwealth elicited testimony from Carroll’s sister that 

Carroll burned “something” at their mother’s house the night of the fight with

Yonko. The Commonwealth presented more than sufficient evidence for a jury 

to conclude that Carroll was guilty of tampering with physical evidence. 

Carroll’s argument that the trial court’s failure to grant his directed 

verdict motion constituted palpable error because the Commonwealth’s case 

was built upon testimony of unreliable witnesses is belied by black letter 

Kentucky law. The Court has long held that “matters of credibility and of the 

weight to be given to a witness’s testimony are solely within the province of the 

jury.” Minter v. Commonwealth, 415 S.W.3d 614, 618 (Ky. 2013). Carroll was 

afforded the opportunity to fully cross-examine the witnesses who testified that 

he stabbed Yonko, disposed of the knife, and burned the clothes he was 

wearing. He does not claim that he was prohibited in any way from attacking 

their credibility by pointing out to the jury that they were felons who had lied 

previously to police. It was the province of the jury to decide whether those 

witnesses were telling the truth. 
9

Finally, though there may have been some conflicting evidence at trial 

pertaining to the tampering charges, that in and of itself does not require 

reversal. Some witnesses testified that Carroll had a knife, and some did not 

see one. Some witnesses saw blood on the knife, and some did not. There were 

eyewitnesses to Carroll starting a fire, while others merely overheard him say 

he was going to start a fire. Again, Carroll had ample opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses and highlight for the jury that there were 

inconsistencies in their testimony. As noted above, the weight and credibility to 

assign to a witness’s testimony is exclusively within the jury’s province. Id. A 

juror may believe all or any part or none of the testimony of any of the 

witnesses Robinson v. Commonwealth, 325 S. W. 3d 368, 271 (Ky 2010).

In ruling on Carroll’s directed verdict motion, the trial court was required 

to construe conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth. Benham, 816 S.W.2d at 187. The amount and character of 

evidence presented in this case was more than sufficient for the 

Commonwealth’s case to survive a motion for directed verdict, even had that 

motion been properly preserved. Carroll was not denied due process, and it was 

not unreasonable for the jury to conclude Carroll committed all of the offenses 

for which he was charged. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying 

Carroll’s motion for directed verdict of acquittal on all charges. 
10

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Warren Circuit Court. 

All sitting. All Concur. 

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:

Robert Chung-Hua Yang

Assistant Public Advocate

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:

Daniel J. Cameron

Attorney General of Kentucky

Robert Lee Baldridge

Assistant Attorney General