Opinion ID: 1874198
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Theft of Donald Durbin's Belongings.

Text: Donald Durbin, the other tenant in Roberts's house while Appellant lived there, testified that he began to notice that some of his personal belongings had been moved or were missing after Appellant moved into the house, and that this caused him to put a lock on his door about a week after Appellant moved in. After Appellant had moved out, Durbin discovered that his pool cue, valued at $325.00, was missing. Appellant's argument that there was insufficient KRE 404(c) notice is without merit. Although the Commonwealth's December 3, 2001, disclosure of its KRE 404(b) evidence, reproduced above, identified only Defendant's theft of Donald Durban's [sic] food and toiletries, that was sufficient to put Appellant on notice of the Commonwealth's intent to introduce evidence of thefts of Durbin's personal property. However, there was no proper purpose that would authorize its admission under KRE 404(b)(1). The Commonwealth argues that this evidence qualified for admission under KRE 404(b)(2) as inextricably intertwined with the murder and kidnapping. The inextricably intertwined rule applies only to evidence that must come in because it `is so interwoven with evidence of the crime charged that its introduction is unavoidable.' Funk, 842 S.W.2d at 480 (quoting Robert G. Lawson, The Kentucky Evidence Law Handbook, § 2.20, at 37 (2d ed. Michie 1984)). See also Metcalf v. Commonwealth, 158 S.W.3d 740, 742-43 (2005) (Evidence was not inextricably intertwined where exclusion of testimony about Appellant's abuse of another child would not have required suppression of any facts and circumstances relevant to the charged sodomy and sexual abuse of [a different minor].); Fleming v. Commonwealth, 284 Ky. 209, 144 S.W.2d 220, 221 (1940) (Evidence is inextricably intertwined where two or more crimes are so linked together in point of time or circumstances that one cannot be fully shown without proving the other.). Obviously, the Commonwealth did not need to prove that Durbin's pool cue was missing in order to prove that Appellant kidnapped and murdered Roberts. In fact, since there was no proof that Appellant took the pool cue, the evidence had no probative value at all. Bell v. Commonwealth, 875 S.W.2d 882, 890 (Ky.1994); Lawson, supra (4th ed.), § 2.25[3][c], at 130-31. Nevertheless, [e]rror can be found [palpable] only if it is more likely than ordinary error to have affected the judgment. 1 Christopher C. Mueller & Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence § 21 (2d ed.1994). Because of the substantial evidence the jury could have used to discredit Appellant's account of the night of April 3, 2000, discussed in Part IV(A)(1), supra, the improper admission of evidence regarding Durbin's missing pool cue did not result in manifest injustice.