Opinion ID: 4568545
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Victim Impact T-shirt

Text: Catlett’s second assignment of error concerns the victim’s mother Sharon Etter being allowed to wear a t-shirt with her deceased son’s picture and wording on it during two days of trial. On the first day of trial, Etter wore a t- shirt with her son’s photo along with the words “rest in peace.” On the final day of trial, when she was called to testify during the penalty phase, Etter wore a t-shirt with Smith’s photo bracketed by his dates of birth and death. Catlett objected on the first day of trial to the t-shirt but did not renew the objection during the remaining three days of trial. When Etter was called to the stand during the penalty phase on the fourth day of trial, no contemporaneous objection was raised to the t-shirt she was wearing. Etter’s testimony about her son and his age at the time of his death, the information discernable from Etter’s t-shirt, was admissible during the penalty phase. KRS 532.055; KRS 421.500. When Catlett made the first and only objection to Etter’s t-shirt on the first day of trial, counsel did not request a continuing objection and the trial court did not grant one. KRE 103 sets out methods to preserve an issue for appellate review including timely objections or motions. A motion in limine resolved by order of record is sufficient to preserve an error for appellate review. Under limited circumstances, we have recognized that a continuing objection may suffice to preserve an issue for appellate review. We said: A single objection constitutes a continuing objection only when counsel specifically requests a continuing objection and the trial court specifically grants a continuing objection, or when the trial court on its own initiative clearly designates an objection as 14 continuing. It is the duty of counsel to object to the introduction of testimony as it is offered, unless from the record it clearly appears that the rulings made as to particular questions shall be applicable to all questions asked on the same subject matter and to all witnesses called. Davis v. Commonwealth, 147 S.W.3d 709, 721 (Ky. 2004) (internal citations omitted). In this case, no continuing objection was sought by Catlett or granted by the trial court. A review of this record does not indicate that Etter wore a similar t-shirt on other days of court proceedings or that Catlett raised an objection. Catlett’s objection was not of a continuing nature because Catlett’s counsel made clear that what they “feared” was that if the trial court allowed Etter to wear the objectionable t-shirt that day, then other family members would follow suit on other days and it would become a distraction. The trial court made clear that if large numbers of people showed up at trial wearing t- shirts and became a distraction, it would deal with that circumstance when it arose. A review of the bench conference reveals that the objection to Etter wearing a t-shirt with victim impact information on day one was heard and overruled. Future problems, if they arose, would be handled when they occurred, presumably following the issue being brought to the trial court’s attention or the trial court raising a concern sue sponte. Neither of those events occurred. 15 Our review will address the single objection to the trial court’s decision to allow Etter to wear the t-shirt in question on the first day of trial. When it comes to the issue of in courtroom displays, we have stated: We take this opportunity to state that we generally disapprove of courtroom attire displaying images or messages of support for or against any party or issue in litigation. But, we recognize that remedial measures to restrict the practice are appropriate only when the display is capable of distracting the jury’s attention from the trial proceedings, or it communicates to the jury an appeal for support or sympathy for one side of the case, which is often the intended purpose of the display. The trial court must eliminate any courtroom attire or display that is “so inherently prejudicial that [it would] deprive the defendant of a fair trial.” Carey [v. Musladin], 549 U.S. [70,] 72 [(2006)]. Hammond v. Commonwealth, 504 S.W.3d 44, 51 (Ky. 2016). The trial court’s focus is not on the display necessarily, but on the possible effect of the display on the jury. Issues surrounding the displayincluding what opportunity the jury had to observe the display and what the display was-must be considered by the trial court. We previously said: We decline, however, to conclude that the wearing of such clothing or buttons in the courtroom is so inherently unfair as always to constitute reversible error. Such a holding would cause a structural error to have occurred each time a potential juror caught a fleeting glimpse of a t-shirt or button bearing the likeness of a victim. Instead, we conclude that the best course in these situations is for the trial court to determine if the spectators’ display caused the defendant to suffer any tangible prejudice. Alien v. Commonwealth, 286 S.W.3d 221, 229 (Ky. 2009). In this instance, the trial judge stated he did not see the t-shirt in question. According to the trial court, the failure to observe the t-shirt was due in part to the seating arrangement of the spectators in the courtroom. Based on what was said at the bench conference, it appears that the spectators were 16 seated behind the jury panel during questioning. Further, all counsel agreed that Etter was the only spectator wearing the t-shirt. The trial court also noted that once the jury was selected, the jurors would enter the courtroom from the jury room and would not see the spectators. The Commonwealth advised the trial court and counsel that she had admonished the victim’s family not to have outbursts or comment on evidence or witnesses. After counsel objected to Etter’s wearing of the t-shirt, Catlett’s counsel made clear the real cause for concern was the potential for distraction if other family members wore the same type t-shirts. As noted above, the trial court indicated it would handle that circumstance if or when it arose. There is nothing in the record indicating the circumstances Catlett feared became a problem during the remaining three days of trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Catlett’s objection to Etter wearing the t-shirt.