Opinion ID: 2770169
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Introduction of Previous Conviction at Trial

Text: Movant's first argument on appeal is that he was prejudiced by the 3 Commonwealth's introduction at trial of his previous conviction for pos -session of methamphetamine. In 2008, Appellant was convicted of multiple crimes, including manufacturing methamphetamine, first offense, for which he was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment. As previously noted, he was on parole from this sentence when he was charged with the current offense. At trial in the present case, Parole Officer Chris Hendricks testified on behalf of the Commonwealth that Appellant was previously of convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine. 1 Howev r,thepos e sionconvictonhad ctualybe nsubsequentlyvac tedby the Court of Appeals because Appellant's convictions at the time for both manufacture and possession of methamphetamine violated double jeopardy law. 2 Appellant contends that the introduction of this voided conviction as evidence against him was material to the result of this case as there was a reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury. Robinson v. Commonwealth, 181 S.W.3d 30, 38 (Ky. 2005) (citing United States v. Agars, 427 U.S. 97, 103) (1976)). Specifically, Appellant argues that there is a reasonable likelihood that hearing about Appellant's prior conviction for manufacture of methamphetamine was relevant evidence in the guilt phase of trial because he was charged with manufacture of methamphetamine, second or greater offense. 2 This Court has held that possession of methamphetamine, KRS 218A.1415 is a lesser-included offense of manufacturing methamphetamine, KRS 218A.1432 for the purposes of double jeopardy. Beaty v. Commonwealth, 125 S.W.3d 196 (Ky. 2003). Convictions for both possession and manufacturing of methamphetamine would only be permissible if the methamphetamine that the defendant was convicted of possessing was not the same methamphetamine that he was convicted of manufacturing. Id. 4 another conviction against Appellant tipped the balance for the jury to find him guilty. Additionally, he asserts that learning about a conviction for possession likely also pushed the.jury away from his innocent possession defense. 3 Appellant admits this issue is unpreserved, but requests palpable error review pursuant to RCr 10.26. Palpable error affects the substantial rights of the party and results in manifest injustice. Furthermore, an appellant claiming palpable error must show that the error was more likely than ordinary error to have affected the jury. Boyd v. Commonwealth, 439 S.W.3d 126, 12930 (Ky. 2014). In determining whether an error is palpable, 'an appellate court must consider whether on the whole case there is a substantial possibility that the result would have beer; any different.' Commonwealth v. Pace, 82 S.W.3d 894, 895 (Ky. 2002) (citing Commonwealth v. McIntosh, 646 S.W.2d 43. 45 (Ky. 1983)). The jury correctly heard from Officer Hendricks that Appellant had been previously convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine, and found him guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine, second or greater offense. Officer Hendricks's testimony regarding Appellant's vacated conviction for possessing methamphetamine is unlikely to have affected the jury's decision, given that the manufacture of methamphetamine already necessarily indicates possession. Thus, we do not hold that there is a substantial possibility that 3 At trial, Appellant denied possession of the items in the outbuilding with the intention to make methamphetamine. He told the jury that Tim Smith, who served as a witness against him in his previous methamphetamine case, was afraid of him and would like nothing more than to see him go back to prison, indicating that Smith had planted the items on his property. 5 the result of Appellant's trial would have been any different due to introduction of his vacated conviction, and Officer Hendricks's testimony does not rise to the level of palpable error.