Opinion ID: 1874198
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: guilt phase kidnapping verdict.

Text: Appellant argues that he was improperly convicted of capital kidnapping, claiming that the jury never found one of the essential elements of capital kidnapping. Again, the issue is not preserved and is reviewed only for palpable error under RCr 10.26. Under this standard, appropriate relief may be granted upon a determination that manifest injustice has resulted from the error. Id. During the guilt phase of the trial, the judge instructed the jury, inter alia, as follows: You will find the Defendant Shawn William Ernst guilty of Kidnapping under this instruction, if, and only if, you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt all of the following: A. That in this county on or about the 2nd or 3rd day of April, 2000, and before the finding of the indictment herein, he restrained Sandra Kay Roberts by wrapping her in a tarp, plastic or shower curtain and/or tying her up with rope and locking her in the trunk of a car; B. That the restraint was without Sandra Kay Roberts' consent; C. That in so restraining Sandra Kay Roberts it was the Defendant's intention to accomplish or advance the commission of the crime of Tampering With Physical Evidence, or to inflict bodily injury or to terrorize Sandra Kay Roberts or another person; -AND- D. Sandra Kay Roberts was not released alive. If you find the Defendant guilty under this Instruction, you shall so state in your verdict and further state whether you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Sandra Kay Roberts was not released alive. (Emphasis added.) The verdict form for kidnapping did not include the additional emphasized language, and the jury did not include it in its verdict. The verdict form, signed by the jury foreperson, read, We, the jury, find the Defendant Shawn William Ernst GUILTY of Kidnapping under Instruction No. 1. Appellant did not object to the instruction, the verdict form, or the form of the verdict returned by the jury. Matthews v. Commonwealth, 709 S.W.2d 414, 420 (Ky.1985). The Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution entitle every criminal defendant to a jury determination that the defendant is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 477, 120 S.Ct. at 2356; United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509-510, 115 S.Ct. 2310, 2313, 132 L.Ed.2d 444 (1995). For kidnapping to be enhanced from a Class B felony to a capital offense, the jury must find that the victim was not released alive, or that the victim subsequently died as a result of the kidnapping. KRS 509.040. Appellant asserts that since the jury did not, as instructed, find this enhancing factor in its verdict, it was palpable error to sentence him to capital punishment. We disagree. A review of the verdict forms and the potential interpretation the jurors gave them involves consideration of the instructions they were given. Wilson v. Commonwealth, 836 S.W.2d 872, 892 (Ky.1992), overruled on other grounds by St. Clair v. Roark, 10 S.W.3d 482, 487 (Ky.1999). While the verdict form used here was not ideal, compare 1 Cooper, Kentucky Instructions to Juries (Criminal) § 3.79D, at 176 (1999), the form did make reference to Instruction No. 1, which required a finding that the victim was not released alive. Therefore, the jury necessarily found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Roberts was not released alive before it convicted Appellant of capital kidnapping. Accordingly, no palpable error occurred.