Opinion ID: 2274149
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Winstead's Convictions are Valid.

Text: Winstead contends the trial court erred by permitting his ex-wife, Terri Rainwater, to testify in contravention of the spousal privilege set forth in KRE 504. We conclude that any error was harmless. Rainwater was Winstead's wife at the time of the murder, but the two had separated and divorced by the time of trial. Police initially interviewed Rainwater when investigating the murder, and she reported that Winstead had returned home at approximately 7:30 the night of the murder. Later on, she contacted the police through counsel and told police that she had not been truthful in her initial interview with them. In a second interview, Rainwater told police that Winstead had not arrived home until about 9:05 on the night of the murder. She later explained in her trial testimony that she had made the initial, false statement because her husband told her to do so. The 7:30 to 9 p.m. time difference was critical information because Branson was last seen leaving a church service at about 7 p.m. Her housekeeper reported receiving a call from her about 9 p.m. The medical examiner determined that Branson had probably died sometime that evening after returning from the church service. [6] Winstead filed a motion in limine seeking to bar Rainwater at trial from testifying at all about events occurring during their marriage and seeking to exclude confidential statements made by him to Rainwater during their marriage. And this motion sought to exclude in particular the communications between Winstead and Rainwater concerning what she should tell police about his whereabouts the night of the murder. But the trial court ruled that communications between spouses about establishing an alibi were not privileged because an alibi, by its very nature, was intended for disclosure. Winstead contends that the trial court erred in this ruling because [t]he confidential communication between the husband and spouse was not just the alleged alibi but the request that it be communicated as an alibi and there can be no doubt that [Winstead] would not have intended for her to communicate this request to a third party. Rainwater testified at trial over Winstead's objection. She told the jury that Winstead arrived home about 9:05 on the night of the murder. She also testified that a few days after the murder, Winstead told her that because of his gambling problems, she should tell police he arrived home at 7:30 the night of the murder. Rainwater further testified that Winstead told her that on the evening of the murder he had been in a church parking lot having a discussion with a friend, Rick Blanchard. Rainwater testified that no one else was present when Winstead asked her to tell police he arrived home at the earlier time. She also testified that Winstead told her that he had had a discussion with his father and that he and his father had decided what to do before Winstead told her to say he arrived home at the earlier time. She further testified that Winstead later told his friend Blanchard to borrow a drill to support the story. The Commonwealth points out that Blanchard testified to borrowing a drill from Winstead the night of the murder. KRE 504 contains two separate evidentiary privileges. The first, contained in section (a), is the testimonial privilege by which a spouse may refuse to testify, or may prevent the other spouse from testifying against him or her, as to events occurring after the date of their marriage.... [7] Since Rainwater was no longer Winstead's wife at the time of trial, the testimonial privilege of KRE 504(a) was inapplicable; and the trial court did not err in allowing Rainwater to testify against Winstead about events occurring during their marriage. [8] Although in a published case we did not explicitly holdbut strongly hintedthat the spousal testimony privilege survives only as long as the marriage, [9] we have explicitly held in an unpublished case that the spousal testimony privilege does not extend to a former spouse. [10] We now, again, definitively hold that the spousal testimony privilege ends when the marriage is dissolved. But the lingering question is whether the challenged portion of Rainwater's testimony was a confidential communication that should have been barred under the marital communication privilege of KRE 504(b). That marital communications privilege (as to confidential communications made during the marriage) survives divorce. [11] Winstead contends that the trial court erroneously failed to exclude his communication to Rainwater that because of his gambling problem, it would be better to tell police that he arrived home at 7:30 p.m. the night of the murder. The Commonwealth responds that because Rainwater testified to Winstead's telling her that he discussed this concocted alibi with others, his communications with her were meant for disclosure, rendering the privilege nonexistent or waived. The Commonwealth further argues that even if the trial court did err in failing to exclude as privileged the challenged alibi request, the error was harmless because the jury would nevertheless have heard Rainwater recant her original time estimate in favor of the later time. [12] Winstead also contends that Rainwater should not have been allowed to testify about the time he actually did arrive home the night of the murder because her observation of his arrival time would itself be considered a confidential communication under the broad definition of communication used in cases like Slaven v. Commonwealth. [13] KRE 504(b) states, [a]n individual has a privilege to refuse to testify and to prevent another from testifying to any confidential communication made by the individual to his or her spouse during their marriage. Under KRE 504(b), a communication is considered confidential when it is made privately by an individual to his or her spouse and is not intended for disclosure to any other person. In Slaven, we quoted with approval a case from 1890 for the conclusion that the term communication is so broad that it may not be confined to a mere statement by the husband to the wife or vice versa; but should be construed to embrace all knowledge upon the part of the one or the other obtained by reason of the marriage relation, and which, but for the confidence growing out of it, would not have been known to the party. [14] As the Commonwealth notes, the broad definition of communication in Slaven seems to be contrary to the principle that spousal privileges are to be narrowly construed. [15] And the Commonwealth adds that the expansive definition of communication leads to potentially absurd results, such as deeming one spouse's surreptitious observations of the other spouse a communication. Finally, Professor Robert Lawson notes in his evidence treatise that other courts take a much narrower view of what is properly deemed a communication. [16] The question of whether we should limit what may properly be deemed a communication under KRE 504 is interesting and potentially important. Here, however, the only type of alleged non-verbal communication at issue is Rainwater's observation of the time that Winstead arrived home. We note that Winstead does not allege that others would not have been able to observe the time he arrived home; for instance, Rainwater's children, who were also home at the time, any persons walking or driving by their home at the time, or any neighbors within sight of his home could have also observed what time Winstead arrived home. Because the time of Winstead's arrival at home could have also been observed by others outside the marriage, we cannot say that Rainwater's observation of her husband's arrival time was a confidential communication between the two spouses even if it might be construed as a communication under the broad definition used in our precedent. [17] So, because the only challenged non-verbal communication in this case was not confidential, we need not revisit in this case whether our broad definition of communication in this context needs to be narrowed. Rather, we need only determine whether a request to one's spouse to communicate an alibi to police is privileged. This appears to be a matter of first impression in Kentucky. Other courts and commentators have split over this issue. For example, in a decision relied upon by the Commonwealth, the Supreme Court of Arkansas has ruled that the spousal privilege is inapplicable when one spouse asks another to communicate a false alibi to the authorities because the requesting spouse expects the other spouse to communicate the fabrication to the authorities. The Arkansas court reasons that the communication between spouses is not privileged here because the requestor intended the alibi to be disclosed to a third party. [18] On the other hand, this approach is criticized by the esteemed FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE treatise, which opines that [w]hen a husband tells his wife to give the police a false alibi, what he intends to be conveyed to the police is the false story, not his direction to his wife to tell that story. [19] In other words, when one spouse asks the other spouse to give specific false information to the authorities, the requesting spouse expects the other only to give the requested false information to authorities, not to disclose the request to give that false information. [20] This conclusion is logical, and we believe this approach is more consistent with the plain language of KRE 504. Despite our disapproval of the act of requesting one's spouse to give false information to police, we nonetheless must follow the plain language of KRE 504(b) to prohibit admission of such requests where such a request is communicated privately to the spouse and the request itself is not intended for disclosure to others. [21] But the privilege is inapplicable if the evidence shows that the request to convey a false alibi was not made privately between the spousesat least one other person was present when the request was madeor if the evidence shows that the requesting spouse intended to disclose to others the particular request that spouse made to the other. In the case at hand, Winstead's request was made privately to Rainwater because no one else was present to witness this communication made by Winstead to Rainwater. Whether Winstead's request that Rainwater give certain false information to police was intended for disclosure to others is a more difficult question to answer. The parties have cited nothing in the record to suggest that anyone else directly testified to Winstead's having told them that he requested his wife to give the specified, and apparently false, information to police. But Rainwater testified that Winstead told her that he had had a discussion with his father and that he and his father had made a decision about what to do before directing her to tell police he got home at the earlier time of 7:30 p.m. Although this testimony from Rainwater implies that Winstead and his father may have discussed what Rainwater and others should tell police about Winstead's whereabouts the night of the murder, this testimony does not specifically show that Winstead had disclosed or intended to disclose his specific request to Rainwater to others or that he had told or intended to disclose this information to others. Although a private communication from one spouse to another requesting that false alibi information be given to police would be privileged under KRE 504(b) so long as the request itself was not intended for disclosure to others, any error by the trial court in admitting Rainwater's testimony of the request here was harmless. [22] We agree with the Commonwealth that even if Winstead's request to Rainwater had been excluded, the jury would still presumably have been presented with evidence that Rainwater first told police that Winstead arrived home at 7:30 the night of the murder but later recanted that statement, labeling it as untruthful. She changed her story to be that Winstead did not actually arrive home until about 9:05 p.m. Although the jury would not have heard direct testimony on the reason for her initial false information to police if the request and related communications solely between the spouses were excluded, the jury might still have inferred that Rainwater had been asked to lie or may have simply found her statements or testimony as to his arrival home to lack reliability. Rainwater's testimony that Winstead told Blanchard to borrow a drill to support the story was properly admitted because this alleged communication to Blanchard in Rainwater's presence was clearly not privileged under KRE 504 because it was not a communication to a spouse and was not made privately. Despite the circumstantial nature of the evidence against Winstead and the highly probative value of the evidence of Winstead's whereabouts during the evening of the murder, given other evidence of guilt, the circumstances of his flight to Costa Rica, and his apparent motive for killing Branson, we can say with fair assurance that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error; and, thus, the error was harmless. [23]
Winstead contends that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the Commonwealth's presentation of the testimony of jailhouse informants Fred Roulette and Daniel Morseman, whom he alleges the Commonwealth used to gather incriminating evidence against him. He concedes that this alleged error is unpreserved, but he contends that it amounts to palpable error under RCr 10.26. [24] We disagree that this is a palpable error. As Winstead points out, we recently acknowledged United States Supreme Court authority providing that the government's use of a jailhouse informant deliberately to elicit incriminating statements from the accused following invocation of the right to counsel violates the Sixth Amendment. [25] Three things must be shown to demonstrate this violation: (1) the right to counsel has attached, (2) the informant was acting as a government agent, and (3) the informant deliberately elicited incriminating statements. [26] As for the deliberate eliciting of incriminating statements prong, we also stated that: a defendant must show that police and the informant performed some action beyond merely listening that was designed deliberately to elicit incriminating remarks. [27] Roulette testified that Winstead pressed him to write letters to the Commonwealth confessing to Branson's murder. And it appeared that the conditions of Roulette's incarceration improved after he informed the Commonwealth of Winstead's promptings. But Winstead does not directly allege that the information was deliberately elicited using government action. [28] Rather, according to Winstead, Roulette came forward to tell the Commonwealth of Winstead's efforts to have him (Roulette) confess before he was offered any sort of promises by the Commonwealth. And although an agent for the Commonwealth purportedly asked Roulette to send a letter to Winstead asking for assurances, Roulette's letter did not actually prompt a reply from Winstead. Rather, Winstead approached another inmate, Morseman, to send a reply to Roulette on Winstead's behalf. And Winstead does not allege that Morseman's action in sending a reply letter was prompted by any promises by the Commonwealth. The facts, as argued by Winstead, belie his argument that the Commonwealth's agents procured incriminating statements: Fred Roulette approached Elaine Yaeger, a correctional officer at the Hopkins County Detention Center, advising her that he had sent letters confessing to the murder of Ann Branson. At that point Officer Yaeger advised him to help the Commonwealth and he would have a win-win situation. Ms. Yaeger certainly implied that by helping the Commonwealth, Mr. Roulette would receive more favorable treatment. Ultimately, Mr. Roulette was transferred to the Christian County Jail where he was allowed smoking privileges; allowed to marry his girlfriend; and was allowed the privilege of retaining his own money rather than placing same in a jail supervised account. Furthermore, Mr. Roulette was spared a potential death penalty on the charge of murder which was pending against him receiving, instead, a sentence of life without parole for a period of 25 years. At the request of Officer Ben Wolcott, Mr. Roulette cooperated with the Commonwealth and forwarded a letter to [Winstead] specifically requesting that [Winstead] reply to him to confirm that he was not forgotten. No reply was received directly from [] Winstead. However, Daniel Morseman, another inmate awaiting trial on an unrelated charge of murder, testified that [] Winstead asked him to send a letter to Roulette confirming that Roulette had not been forgotten by his friends. This evidence was directly obtained by the Commonwealth through the use of two informers. As a result the jury heard evidence which would allow them to conclude the communication from Morseman was, in fact, from [Winstead], confirming that he would not forget his friend, Roulette. Applying the McBeath requirements to the facts of this case, the trial court did not engage in palpable error in allowing the unobjected-to presentation of this testimony. The first requirement, that the right to counsel has attached, appears to be satisfied since Winstead had been indicted long before these jailhouse communications occurred. Nonetheless, even assuming for the sake of argument that the second requirement is fulfilled by Roulette and Morseman acting as government agents because they eventually perhaps received more favorable treatment for their testimony and other cooperation with the government, the third requirement of deliberately eliciting incriminating information was not clearly established. Other than Roulette's letter to Winstead at an officer's direction asking for assurances that Roulette was not forgotten, there is no evidence that Roulette or Morseman ever questioned Winstead in any manner or used other techniques deliberately to elicit incriminating information. Any error in the admission of this testimony was not palpable. The most incriminating statement attributed to Winstead his asking Roulette to confesswas not as a result of questioning by Roulette but, apparently, was initiated by Winstead. Such actions as Roulette writing Winstead a letter asking for assurances that Roulette was not forgotten might amount to actions designed to elicit incriminating evidence while acting as a government agent, but the response Roulette received was a letter by Morsemannot Winstead. And the letter itself was innocuous because it did not directly contain a confession. The letter only obliquely stated that Roulette was not forgotten by his friends or that he had friends who would be true to their word. As we recognized in McBeath, a defendant must show that police and their informant did more than merely listen but, instead, took some action deliberately designed to elicit incriminating remarks. There is no evidence that the most damaging incriminating remarks by Winstead asking Roulette to confesswas in response to any action by Roulette or law enforcement authorities; rather, it appears that Winstead himself set that ball in motion. Although other remarks by Winstead might have been elicited from jailhouse informants acting as government agentssuch as the cryptic letter sent by Morseman in response to Roulette's letter asking for assurancethese remarks had little incriminating value by themselves. These remarks had no substantial effect on the trial and did not result in manifest injustice. So, to the extent that the trial court erred in permitting the unobjected-to introduction of this testimony, the error was not palpable and is not cause for reversal of Winstead's convictions.
Winstead contends he was entitled to a directed verdict on the murder and robbery charges. We disagree. Even ignoring any evidence that he asked his wife to lie about his whereabouts on the night of the murder or that he bribed another inmate to take responsibility for the crimes, the evidence was sufficient to withstand a directed verdict motion. The familiar standard for ruling on a motion for directed verdict is as follows: 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 reserving to the jury questions as to the credibility and weight to be given to such testimony. 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. [29] The case against Winstead was entirely circumstantial. But even circumstantial evidence may form the basis for a conviction so long as the evidence is sufficient to convince a reasonable jury of guilt. [30] The evidence showed that: a) Winstead owed a substantial debt to Branson; b) a witness [31] identified Winstead as the person she saw in or near Branson's driveway the night Branson was murdered; c) there were no signs of forced entry into Branson's home, and Branson was struck in the back of her head, arguably suggesting that she was familiar with her killer; d) the police discovered a knife consistent with that used to kill Branson hidden under Winstead's mattress; e) Winstead suspiciously tried to retrieve that knife after being ordered to leave the marital home; f) Winstead attempted to borrow money to put into Branson's bank account near the time of her death; g) Branson's notation of the $12,000 check from Winstead near the time of her death and Branson's mention of that check to her friend; h) the fact that one particular check from Winstead's checking account near the time of Branson's death has never been accounted for; [32] and i) Winstead's flight to Costa Rica. [33] Based on these facts, a reasonable juror could have permissibly inferred that Winstead wrote a check to Branson, killed Branson, and stole the check. So, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the Commonwealth, Winstead was not entitled to a directed verdict on either the murder or the robbery charge.
Winstead alleges that the prosecutor made improper statements in closing argument that necessitate reversal. We disagree. Winstead identifies four instances during the prosecutor's closing argument in which the prosecutor allegedly misstated the evidence. In each of these instances, Winstead objected; and the trial court admonished the jury. In the first instance of alleged prosecutorial misconduct, the prosecutor misquoted the testimony of a microbiologist at the Kentucky State Police Lab as stating that hair follicles recovered from the crime scene did not have roots. In fact, the microbiologist actually stated that his report did not indicate whether these hair follicles had roots or not. The hair follicles were determined not to be those of Branson or Winstead, and they were not submitted for DNA analysis. The trial court admonished the jury that despite the Commonwealth's quoting the microbiologist as saying the hair did not have roots, the microbiologist actually stated that his report did not say whether the hair had roots or not. The trial court further stated that the jury could reach its own conclusion regarding why the hair had not been submitted for DNA analysis but reiterated that there was no testimony that there were no roots attached to the hair. In the second instance of alleged prosecutorial misconduct, the prosecutor argued that Winstead had given Branson a check for which Winstead had insufficient funds to cover and that Winstead came to her house to retrieve the check from Branson because he could have faced felony charges for issuing a cold check. Upon Winstead's objection, the trial court admonished the jury that there was no evidence of a felony because there was no evidence that the alleged act of writing a cold check was a felony or that any prosecution would follow for this act. In the third instance of alleged prosecutorial misconduct, Winstead complains that the prosecutor misstated the medical examiner's testimony as indicating that a knife found under Winstead's mattress was the one knife that fits into the wound when, in fact, the medical examiner merely stated the knife was consistent with the wounds but did not say it fit the wounds or that it was definitely the knife used on the victim. From our review of the videotape of the trial, it appears that the statement about the knife fitting the wounds occurred while the prosecutor was trying to emphasize the significance of the medical examiner's statement that the knife was consistent with the wounds. Reminding the jury of evidence that Winstead had gotten a relative to go to his former marital home weeks after the murder to retrieve a particular knife from his collection of knives, the prosecutor asked the jury to consider [w]hat are the chances that he would send someone in the middle of the night to get the one knife that fits into the wound? The prosecutor further stated that the medical examiner did not put the knife into the wounds; but she said when you measure the diameters, it would produce that type of wound. Winstead then lodged an objection, stating the medical examiner had only said the knife could have possibly been the murder weapon. The prosecutor then stated again the knife was consistent with the wounds; and the trial judge, without explicitly ruling on the objection, stated: that is correct, it was not the one. The prosecutor clarified that he did not say the knife found under the mattress was the weapon used on the victim but that the knife was consistent with the wound; and it would produce those types of wounds, size, dimension, weight and that's the one he had hidden and the one he had to recover because he knew it would be found. The fourth instance of alleged prosecutorial misconduct in misstating evidence involved the prosecutor misquoting Winstead's former Costa Rican girlfriend as stating that Winstead told her if you think I could kill my aunt, don't you think I could kill you too. Winstead argues that she actually testified to his saying if I killed my aunt, why haven't I killed you? According to Winstead, the misstatement was material because the change in language made it more of a threat. Upon Winstead's objection, the trial court admonished the jury about what the witness had actually said. In doing so, the trial court first noted what the prosecutor had quoted the girlfriend as saying before telling the jury what she had actually said. We do not condone misstatements of the evidence, whether made intentionally or carelessly; but the misstatements here were not so egregious or prejudicial as to require reversal especially in light of the trial court's admonitions correcting such misstatements for the jury. [34] As the Commonwealth argues, Winstead got what he wanted and is not entitled to any additional relief for the misstatements. In addition to the four misstatements of evidence, Winstead alleges that the prosecutor engaged in further misconduct by concluding his closing argument with his personal opinion that Winstead did it. But, from our review of the trial videotape, it appears more accurate to say that the prosecutor was arguing that the jury should find that he did it instead of offering the prosecutor's personal opinion that he did it. The prosecutor concluded his closing argument by pointing out various items of circumstantial evidence of guilt and analogizing the jury's task to a game of liar's poker and directing the jury to put the chips in and say, I call. You don't have the hand. He did it. Although trial counsel must base their arguments to the jury upon the evidence presented and not upon counsel's personal opinion of the defendant's guilt, given the wide latitude afforded to prosecutors in making closing arguments and the overall fairness of the trial, these statements did not result in reversible error. [35] In sum, we discern no reason to reverse based upon the alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct.
Winstead contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial and his request to examine jurors individually after a court security officer informed the trial court that some jurors had been observed using their cell phones during penalty phase deliberations. Upon the trial court's questioning of the jury as a group, the foreperson acknowledged that some individual jurors had used cell phones during deliberations. Also, some individual jurors admitted to the trial court that they had used cell phones during both the guilt phase deliberations and during the penalty phase deliberations. The jurors all stated that their cell phone calls involved personal matters, such as checking to make sure children arrived home safely and checking in with work. The jurors who admitted to making calls all represented that none of these calls concerned the case they were trying. We also note that although the trial court admitted to having failed to admonish jurors against using their cell phones in deliberations, the trial court had appropriately admonished the jurors not to discuss the case with others who were not jurors. Winstead contends that the trial court should have declared a mistrial because of the jurors' unmonitored cell phone conversations during deliberations. In support, he cites a decades-old case that required reversal or mistrial where there existed an opportunity for outside influence upon jurorseven without actual proof of improper influencein connection with one juror's unmonitored telephone call made during deliberation. [36] We agree with Winstead's argument that the jurors' use of cell phones could easily result in opportunities for improper outside influence. On a broader scope, jurors' access to any electronic communication device or media at anytime during their jury service provides an opportunity for improper outside influence on jury decisions. For that reason, the wary trial judge must clearly admonish jurors at the commencement of trial and at other times when the jurors separate during the trial to avoid using their computers, laptops, cell phones, and other electronic communication devices to communicate with anyone or perform any research on any matter connected with the trial of the case. And when the jury retires to consider its verdict, the trial judge must direct a court official to collect and store all cell phones or other electronic communication devices until deliberations are complete. During deliberations, the court may release the cell phones or other electronic communication devices to allow appropriate communications by jurors (such as arranging for transportation, childcare, etc.) and may require such communication to be monitored by court officials. [37] In the case at hand, we find the trial court's handling of the matter appropriate under our more recent precedents dealing with juror misconduct in general in which we have acknowledged the discretion afforded to trial courts in dealing with such matters. [38] To the extent that our precedent dealing with phone calls made by unmonitored jurors, such as Hamilton, is inconsistent with the more flexible approach we have developed in recent years for dealing with juror misconduct, such precedent is hereby overruled. Instead, we now hold that such phone calls made by unmonitored jurors do not automatically entitle the defendant to a mistrial or other particular relief; but, rather, we recognize the trial court's discretion to determine, under the particular facts and circumstances of the case (including the nature of the misconduct and whether any prejudice from the misconduct is shown), whether a mistrial or other relief is warranted. Here, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial because there was no clear showing of manifest necessity for mistrial in light of the lack of proof that the case was discussed and the trial court's prior admonitions. [39] So we find no reason to disturb Winstead's convictions or sentences based on the jurors' cell phone usage under the facts of this case.