Opinion ID: 1790359
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: evidence of past imprisonments.

Text: The Commonwealth introduced this evidence through the testimony of Appellant's estranged father, James Major, who was permitted to testify that Appellant had obtained his GED (General Educational Development) diploma while in prison, that one of Appellant's wives divorced him while he was in prison, that Appellant had married a pen pal with whom he corresponded while in prison, and that Appellant was sentenced to fifteen years for sexually abusing his children but got out in ten for good behavior. James Major also testified that while incarcerated in Kentucky on charges of molesting D.O., Appellant called him on the telephone and confessed to the murder of his wife. The majority opinion holds that all of this evidence of multiple imprisonments was admissible as explaining the delay in the Appellant being brought back to Kentucky.... Ante, at 708. I disagree. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. KRE 401 (emphasis added). As explained by Professor Lawson, KRE 401 incorporates the concepts of both relevance and materiality. Relevance is embodied in the language any tendency to make the existence of any fact ... more probable or less probable.... Materiality is embodied in the language that is of consequence to the determination of the action. Robert G. Lawson, The Kentucky Evidence Law Handbook § 2.05[2], at 78-79 (4th ed. LexisNexis 2003). A consequential or material fact is ascertained under ... substantive law by determining whether it is in issue in the sense that it is within the range of litigated matters in controversy. It need not be an element of a crime or cause of action or defense but it must, at least, be in issue.... If the evidence is offered to prove a fact not in issue under substantive law then, while it might be probative of that fact, it is nonetheless not relevant under Rule 401. Id. § 2.05[3], at 81 (quoting 2 Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 401.04[3][b] (2d ed. 2002)). However: The fact to which the evidence is directed need not be in dispute.... Evidence which is essentially background in nature can scarcely be said to involve disputed matter, yet it is universally offered and admitted as an aid to understanding. Charts, photographs, views of real estate, murder weapons, and many other items of evidence fall into this category. A rule limiting admissibility to evidence directed to a controversial point would invite the exclusion of this helpful evidence, or at least the raising of endless questions over its admission. Id. (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 401, Advisory Committee's Notes). Neither the fact that Appellant had been previously incarcerated nor the length of his incarceration was a fact that is of consequence to the determination of whether he murdered his wife. Nor was it helpful in understanding other relevant evidence. [E]xplaining the delay in the Appellant being brought back to Kentucky is a non-issue. Appellant did not confess the murder to his father until 1996, after he had completed his imprisonment in Massachusetts and after he had been extradited to Kentucky and imprisoned on charges of sexually abusing D.O. in Kentucky. James Major did not tell Kentucky authorities about the confession until 2001, after Appellant had completed service of his Kentucky sentence. Thus, the explanation for the delay was not Appellant's multiple imprisonments but the fact that the police did not learn of his confession until 2001. Of course, the evidence was not only irrelevant; it was also highly prejudicial in that it portrayed Appellant as a life-long criminal. Considering the absence of any probativeness and the extreme prejudicial effect of this evidence, I would hold that its admission was an abuse of discretion and would direct the trial court on remand to exclude it on retrial.