Opinion ID: 2542073
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Trial Court Appropriately Conducted the Second Penalty Phase.

Text: Davis argues that even if the trial court properly empanelled a new jury, it employed erroneous procedures for the second penalty phase.; Specifically, he claims the trial court unfairly threatened to play the videotape of the entire three-day guilt phase of the trial if the Commonwealth and Davis failed to agree on a summary of the evidence to present at the new penalty phase. [21] We disagree. Boone v. Commonwealth [22] provides an outline of matters that might be pertinent for a penalty-phase jury to consider in addition to those listed in KRS 532.055(2). [23] Rather than reading a complete transcript of the guilt phase to the jury, we believe it would suffice, in most cases, for the jury to have read to it (a) the charges from the indictment of which the defendant was found guilty; (b) any charge of which the defendant was found guilty which was a lesser-included offense to a charge set out in the indictment; (c) the jury instructions given by the trial court at the guilt phase; and (d) the jury's verdict. In addition to the matters set out above, should both sides agree, each could read a concise summary of the evidence which it offered and which was admitted at the guilt phase of the earlier trial. Similarly, the closing arguments of both sides from the guilt phase could be read or projected if both agreed. [24] Boone does not establish strict limits on the types of evidence admissible in a new penalty-phase trial. [25] It recognizes broad discretion on the part of the trial court in determining the admissibility of evidence in re-sentencing. [26] And while encouraging summaries for the sake of expediting re-sentencing trials, this Court does not require that summaries always be presented in lieu of live testimony, reading transcripts of prior trial testimony, or playing videotapes of prior trial testimony. [27] We find that the trial court acted well within its discretion when it told Davis and the Commonwealth that it would play the entire guilt phase of the trial for the jury if they did not provide a summary of the evidence. The trial court sought to proceed with the second penalty phase in a timely manner. But it appears that Davis and the Commonwealth did not actively pursue an agreed upon summary of the evidence. The trial court expressed frustration with the cavalier attitude both attorneys displayed for the issue. And the parties ultimately did agree on an evidentiary summary, so the; trial court did not show the jury the whole guilt-phase videotape. [28] We do not find anything-unfair or erroneous in the trial court's treatment of the issue.