Opinion ID: 2332719
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Purchase and Use of Crack Cocaine

Text: Prior to trial, the Commonwealth filed a notice pursuant to KRE 404(c) of its intent to introduce evidence pertaining to Appellant's purchase and use of crack cocaine during the evening of June 25, 1998, and the morning of June 26, 1998. The Commonwealth stated that evidence of Appellant's purchase of drugs with money obtained through the use of Williamson's stolen ATM card demonstrated motive and was interwoven with other evidence essential to the case in that the separation of this evidence cannot be accomplished without serious adverse effect to Plaintiff. Over defense objection, the trial court ultimately ruled that while evidence of Appellant's cocaine use prior to the offenses was not admissible, evidence of Appellant's actions surrounding his commission of the offense of receiving goods and services obtained by fraud on June 25-26 was intertwined with facts of the other crimes and that the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect. We agree. Appellant contends that the evidence of his crack cocaine purchase and use was not relevant because defense counsel admitted that Appellant had committed all of the crimes except murder. Notwithstanding, the trial court properly held that the evidence was inextricably intertwined so as to be admissible under KRE 404(b). Appellant is not entitled to stipulate away otherwise competent evidence simply because he does not want the jury to hear such. Barnett v. Commonwealth, Ky., 979 S.W.2d 98 (1998); Chumbler v. Commonwealth, Ky., 905 S.W.2d 488 (1995). The evidence of Appellant's use of crack cocaine showed that he used Williamson's ATM card to obtain money to purchase the drugs. Clearly, such evidence is intertwined with the evidence pertaining to the other charges in this case. Cf Funk v. Commonwealth, Ky., 842 S.W.2d 476 (1992). No error occurred.