Opinion ID: 1352908
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the voir dire on range of penalties.

Text: Relying on Lawson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 53 S.W.3d 534 (2001), Appellant argues that the trial court erroneously advised the jury that the possible range of penalties for first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance was one to twenty years imprisonment. He points out that the trafficking charge, a Class C felony, carries a sentence of five to ten years, which would be enhanced to ten to twenty years pursuant to the second-degree PFO charge. Nonetheless, the trial court permitted the Commonwealth to advise the jury on a penalty range of one to twenty years due to the possibility of a lesser-included offense instruction. In Lawson, supra , this Court held that voir dire should be limited to the jurors' ability to consider only the penalty ranges for the individual indicted offenses without PFO enhancement and without the possibility of a lesser-included offense. Id. at 544 (emphasis added). As such, under Lawson the trial court clearly erred in permitting the Commonwealth to voir dire on a penalty range of one to twenty years. Notwithstanding, the error was to Appellant's advantage because he was tried by a jury that expressed its willingness to impose a one-year sentence. Furthermore, as noted by the Court of Appeals, the jury was instructed on the lesser-included offense of possession of a controlled substance, a Class D felony, which carries a penalty of one to five years. Thus, any error during voir dire must be deemed harmless. RCr 9.24.