Opinion ID: 1652270
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Criminal Syndication Charge.

Text: Although KRS 506.120 contains many methods for committing criminal syndication, according to the essential parts of the instruction the trial court issued to the jury, the jury could convict Parker only if it found beyond a reasonable doubt that Parker committed, conspired or attempted to commit or act as an accomplice in the commission of any offense of violence and that when he did so, Parker had the intent to establish, maintain, or facilitate any of the activities of an organization consisting of five or more persons collaborating to promote or engage in Trafficking in a Controlled Substance on a continuing basis. [76] Parker contends the Commonwealth failed to show that he collaborated with others to traffic in a controlled substance. This argument is without merit since we have previously explained that the Commonwealth did present enough proof to withstand Parker's motion for a directed verdict on the conspiracy to traffic in a controlled substance charge. But the offense of criminal syndication requires the collaboration of five or more persons. [77] By contrast, the trafficking charge at hand only involved three personsParker, Coffey, and Warfield. The collaboration in the statute means simply collaborating in the scheme, and it is not necessary for the Commonwealth to show that each participant collaborating in the scheme collaborated with or even was aware of the collaboration of the other participants. [78] And criminal syndication requires the illegal conduct (in this case, trafficking in a controlled substance) to occur on a continuing basis[,] [79] as opposed to the singular drug deal that resulted in Barnes' death. In order to prove the activity occurred on a continuing basis, [t]he Commonwealth is not held to proving any specific number of incidents or any element of time, but must show by the proof what the jury could infer from the evidence as intent to collaborate on a continuing basis. [80] We must determine whether the Commonwealth adduced proof that at least two others joined Parker, Coffey, and Warfield in collaborating to promote or engage in trafficking in a controlled substance and that the collaboration occurred on a continuing basis. Our efforts are greatly hampered by the unfortunate dearth of information in the Commonwealth's brief. After quoting KRS 506.120, the Commonwealth's brief merely generically provides that: While the gang consisted of nine to twelve active members, the appellant would act individually or with small groups in activities related to the furtherance of the Crips [sic] authorityretaliating against the Bloods, securing drug turf, securing drug for re-sale, and maintaining the integrity of the business by shooting people who were behind in their payments (even if the victim is a relative). It was not clearly unreasonable to submit the charge of criminal syndication to the jury because appellant's actions and the actions of other members of the Crips were designed to facilitate the syndicate's activities as required by the statute. Noticeably lacking from the Commonwealth's brief is a single citation to precedent or other authority or to the record to support its contention that the trial court did not err in denying Parker's motion for a directed verdict. Indeed, the Commonwealth does not name the four or more additional persons who allegedly assisted Parker in the Crips's drug trafficking efforts, nor does the Commonwealth point to anything specific in the record to show that Parker and the Crips collaboratively trafficked in drugs on a continuing basis. [81] It is well-settled that an appellate court will not sift through a voluminous record to try to ascertain facts when a party has failed to comply with its obligation under Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 76.12(4)(d)(iv) [82] (in the case of an Appellee's brief) to provide specific references to the record. [83] So we will not undertake in the task of reviewing the approximately twenty videotapes that Parker's trial record consumes to determine if the Commonwealth introduced sufficient evidence to withstand Parker's motion for a directed verdict on the criminal syndication charge. In reviewing the record for the other arguments raised in this appeal, we viewed Coffey testifying in such a manner as to leave no doubt that there were at least five members of the Crips. But we have not been directed to any testimony that would show that at least five Crips collaborated on a continuing basis to traffic in drugs. In fact, Coffey testified to the contrary when he stated that the Crips made their own deals and sold their own drugs. Although Coffey testified that all of the Crips sold drugs to earn money, Coffey also memorably testified that every man did their own thing. And the only drug-related offense was the conspiracy to traffic in narcotics charge, for which only three individuals were named as conspirators. Additionally, that charge involved only a one-time drug deal or robbery, not a continuing collaboration to sell narcotics. It is simply beyond question that one incident involving only three individuals is not sufficient to prove the existence of an ongoing collaboration involving at least five individuals. In short, the Commonwealth has not pointed to any evidence to show that it presented proof that Parker and at least four other persons collaborated to traffic in narcotics on a continuing basis. So we must conclude the trial court erred by failing to grant Parker's motion for a directed verdict on the criminal syndication charge. [84] Parker's criminal syndication conviction is reversed for that reason.