Opinion ID: 4568545
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Directed Verdict on Murder

Text: Catlett argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict on the murder charge. The issue was preserved by Catlett’s motions for directed verdict at the close of the Commonwealth’s case and the close of all evidence. The focus of the motions were deficits in the Commonwealth’s proof about the identity of the shooter. There was no doubt as to the other elements in the indictment based on the Commonwealth’s proof about the cause and manner of Smith’s death, the location in Hopkins County of the shooting, and the immediate circumstances surrounding the shooting. However, despite the presence of dozens of people on the street the night in question and the 17 testimony of five witnesses who were standing close to Smith when he was shot, the identity of the person who fired the five shots at close range was in dispute at trial. “On appellate review, the test of a directed verdict is, if under the evidence as a whole, it would be clearly unreasonable for a jury to find guilt, only then the defendant is entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal.” Commonwealth v. Benham, 816 S.W.2d 186, 187 (Ky. 1991). “The trial court must draw all fair and reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the party opposing the motion, and a directed verdict should not be given unless the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.” Commonwealth v. Sawhill, 660 S.W.2d 3, 5 (Ky. 1983). Further analysis of the trial record is essential for this analysis. The information previously discussed will not be repeated except as required to explain and highlight the circumstances revealed by the evidence. The Commonwealth offered eyewitness testimony about the fatal shooting from Myesha Hill, Devonte Cousar, Carla Taylor, Maurice Williams, and Austin Teague. Although some of these witnesses were standing as close as arm’s length from Smith when he was shot, none of them immediately identified Catlett as the shooter. We begin with a review of the testimony of the Commonwealth’s most important witness, Hill. Sitting in a parked car at the end of Younglove Street near a church parking lot as a block party wound down, Hill, Smith’s cousin, was waiting for her friend to come out of a nearby house so they could leave. Hill’s view of 18 some of the events was clear. Within hours of the shooting, Hill described and identified a man she saw remove a handgun from a white SUV to the police. Hill’s description of the man included that he was wearing a red shirt, had dreadlocks, and most significantly, that she saw him put a handgun in his waistband. While Hill had a clear view of the events leading up to the shooting, her view of the actual shooting was blocked by a crowd of people. She was unable to say if the man she saw get the gun from the SUV fired the shots. According to Hill, after the shooting, that man got in the white SUV with four other people and left before police arrived. Hill did not know Catlett before the shooting and did not know his nickname was “50”; nevertheless, Hill chose Catlett’s picture from a photo array of six black and white photos. Hill’s identification was made within hours of the shooting and led to an arrest warrant being issued for Catlett. Smith, the victim of the shooting, began the evening driving around Hopkinsville with two friends. One of those friends was Devonte Cousar, who got out of the front passenger seat of the vehicle when Smith stopped the car on Younglove Street and was standing close to Smith talking to Carla Taylor when somebody brushed by him. Cousar’s focus was on getting Taylor to help him get Smith back in the vehicle so they could leave, and as a result, Cousar did not see the shots, but immediately went to Smith—catching him as he fell to the ground. 19 Cousar described seeing a short black man with a buff body and dreadlocks in a red shirt after the shooting. Cousar said he thought he saw that man when they first pulled up and stopped the car. Cousar failed to pick Catlett’s photo from a photo array despite knowing him as “50.” However, two days after the shooting, Cousar identified Catlett from a Facebook post containing a photograph of Catlett’s face. Cousar explained it took that amount of time and three police interviews for him to identify Catlett because he was numb and did not want to believe Smith’s shooting and death had really occurred. Cousar said he was not initially sure in his own mind about the shooter, and not until he was sure, did he finally identify Catlett. Another of Smith’s friends, Maurice Williams, said he was drunk the night of the shooting and got out of the back seat of Smith’s car when it stopped. Williams was standing next to Smith watching Teague, who was arguing with Smith and standing in front of Smith and Williams. According to Williams, neither Smith or Teague had a weapon that night. Williams never saw the shots as they were fired because the shots came from behind Smith and were fired at arm’s length—a fact supported by the stippling found in Smith’s neck wound during Smith’s autopsy by Dr. Christopher Kiefer, the medical examiner. The only description Williams could provide police was a man with a red hat and a chrome revolver. Williams did not identify Catlett and testified he never saw Carla Taylor that night. Taylor was related to Smith through a sister’s grandchild. Taylor testified her memory of the night of the shooting “sucked” because she had 20 suffered other mental traumas since that night. Taylor did not recall talking to Cousar that night. However, she knew Catlett and did not pick him out of a photo array and she told police she did not see Catlett that night. Taylor said an unknown black male slid by her and fired shots from close to her side. Taylor did not see the shooter fire the shots, but did see the muzzle flash. Taylor told police the shooter had braids or cornrows and gave no description of his clothes other than he was wearing red or black. Taylor said she never saw the shooter’s face. Teague was in a verbal altercation with Smith when Smith was shot. Teague knew Catlett, called him “JR,” and claimed he never used the nickname “50,” despite having Catlett’s number under that name in two of several cell phones recovered during the execution of a search warrant at his house. Teague testified he did not see Catlett the night of the shooting and Catlett had short hair at the time. Additionally, Catlett called Ernest Little to testify about his whereabouts the night in question. Little testified Catlett was with him in Clarksville, Tennessee, at another party that night. Little said there were hundreds of other people at that party, but no one else was called to testify that they saw Catlett there. Most of the remainder of the Commonwealth’s evidence shed little light on the shooter’s identity. Despite being only a couple of blocks from the shooting conducting a routine traffic stop and close enough for body cameras to pick up the sound of the five shots, police did not make it to the scene in 21 time to catch the shooter or locate the murder weapon. The seven spent shell casings police located near Smith’s body did not match the projectiles recovered from Smith’s body. According to Lawrence Pilcher, a firearms and ballistics expert from the KSP Central Crime Lab, a conclusion that could be drawn from the array of different caliber casings found at the scene probably meant the bullets that killed Smith were fired from a revolver and the shooter left no casings at the scene. Police focus on Catlett as a suspect began when Hopkinsville Police Lieutenant DeArmond came to the scene and assisted with crowd control. Someone in the crowd shouted “50 did it.” Lieutenant DeArmond did not recognize the nickname, so when he returned to the police station he contacted a narcotics detective who provided him With Catlett’s name in connection to the nickname “50.” Detective Bagby’s information led police to execute a search warrant at Catlett’s sister’s house and the recovery of a red t-shirt. Based on Detective Bagby’s information, police included Catlett’s picture in the photo arrays shown to witnesses—including Hill, who was shown the photo array within a few hours of the shooting. Ultimately, police obtained an arrest warrant for Catlett the same day as the fatal shooting. Upon executing a search warrant, officers found a red t-shirt in Catlett’s room at his sister’s house which tested positive for gunshot residue. J. David Clem, a forensic chemist with the KSP central lab, testified that finding the three elements (barium, antimony, and lead) that were necessary to determine 22 that there was gunshot reside present meant either the shirt was nearby when a gun was fired or the shirt came in contact with a gun that had been fired. The medical examiner was able to determine there was stippling around the single shot to Smith’s neck. Stippling is gun powder burned into the outer skin around a wound. Dr. Kiefer testified the presence of stippling meant the gim was anywhere from three inches to twenty-four inches away from Smith when the shot was fired. The remaining wounds were underneath clothes and Dr. Kiefer was unable to determine how close the gun was when they were fired. Dr. Kiefer testified that Smith was killed by a shot through the heart. The KSP Central Crime Lab was unable to make any determinations from serology or DNA testing on the t-shirt. Hopkinsville Police department crime scene technicians recovered a spent shell casing in Smith’s vehicle, but it also failed to match the fatal projectiles. Bullets in both plastic and cardboard holders found in Teague’s house yielded no fingerprint matches from AFIS, the federal agency assisting local law enforcement with fingerprint matching. The Hopkinsville police were able to open various cellphones and determine that Teague had a contact for “50” as well as for “JR.” A different cellphone had a Facebook account loaded on it, and when it updated, it included a message to “50” about a new phone number. Finally, the Commonwealth called Detective Plynt of the Evansville Police Department. Ten days after the shooting, Detective Plynt was surveilling a known drug house in Evansville, Indiana, when a car pulled up, someone from the vehicle went inside, returned to the vehicle shortly thereafter, and the car 23 left the vicinity. Police followed the vehicle and pulled the car over suspecting narcotics trafficking. When Detective Plynt questioned one of the passengers, the man gave two different dates of birth and a name that did not line up with information in the police system. The passenger was arrested for giving the police a false identity. Later at the jail, fingerprints revealed that the passenger was Catlett. Catlett’s mugshot showed his hair was cut short. At trial, Catlett’s motions for directed verdict covered a great many of the shortcomings in the Commonwealth’s evidence. “When considering whether the trial court erred in the denial of a directed verdict, this Court must consider all evidence favoring the Commonwealth as true and from that evidence, determine whether it is sufficient to induce a reasonable jury to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of each and every element of the crime. Pollini v. Commonwealth, 172 S.W.3d 418, 428-29 (Ky. 2005) (citing Benham, 816 S.W.2d at 187). Considering the evidence as true, Hill placed Catlett at the scene with a gun. Her identification of Catlett was made within hours of the shooting and Hill was careful and unmistakably clear in her testimony that she did not see Catlett fire the five shots. The witness identifying Catlett as the shooter was Devonte Cousar. After much reflecting on the death of his close friend and making sure he was straight in his own mind about who fired the shots, Cousar identified Catlett as the shooter. Officers then found gunshot residue on a red t-shirt 24 recovered from Catlett’s bedroom at his sister’s house. Finally, Catlett was arrested in Indiana for using a false name and date of birth. When he was arrested, Catlett’s hair was cut short. It is these final pieces of information that give rise to much disagreement by Catlett on the inferences they create. However, juries are allowed to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. As this court said about postcriminal-event activities: “But some inferences upon inferences are necessarily allowed. For example, in a criminal case, consciousness of guilt can be inferred from things like assumption of a false name after a crime—and, in turn, the Tact of guilt’ can be inferred from the defendant's consciousness of guilt.” Southworth v. Commonwealth, 435 S.W.3d 32, 46 (Ky. 2014). Evidence of fleeing has long been admissible and proof of a guilty heart. In describing the long history of allowing such evidence we said: It has long been held that proof of flight to elude capture or to prevent discovery is admissible because “flight is always some evidence of a sense of guilt.” Hord v. Commonwealth, 227 Ky. 439, 13 S.W.2d 244, 246 (1928); see also, e.g., Chumbler v. Commonwealth, Ky., 905 S.W.2d 488, 496 (1995); Hamblin v. Commonwealth, Ky., 500 S.W.2d 73, 74 (1973). This common-law rule is based on the inference that the guilty run away but the innocent remain, which echoes more eloquent language from the Bible: “The wicked flee where no man pursueth; but the righteous are bold as a lion.” Proverbs 28:1. Rodriguezv. Commonwealth, 107 S.W.3d 215, 218-19 (Ky. 2003). In summary, we conclude the trial court did not err when it overruled Catlett’s motion for a directed verdict on the murder count of the indictment. After review, we conclude there was sufficient evidence for the case to proceed 25 to the jury. The many problems in the Commonwealth’s proof that Catlett pointed out in his motions were best left for the jury to view, balance, and weigh in making its decisions. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Catlett’s motions for directed verdict on the murder count of the indictment. D. Misstatement of Gunshot Residue Expert Testimony Catlett next asserts that the Commonwealth erred in its closing argument when it made a misstatement concerning the gunshot residue testimony. The issue revolves around the testimony of J. David Clem, a forensic chemist specializing in trace evidence analysis. Clem’s lab work at the KSP Central Crime Lab for Catlett’s case was on gunshot residue analysis. Specifically, Clem analyzed the red-t-shirt recovered by Detective Green in Catlett’s bedroom at his sister’s house. Clem ran multiple procedures on the t- shirt looking for lead, antimony, and barium particles—the three elements conclusive for gunpowder. In one test, the procedures located nine particles and in a second procedure, ten additional particles. The ten particles are at issue because those particles, due to their composition, could have origins from something other than gunpowder, including someone working in a factory where car parts are made. Catlett’s appellate argument is largely focused on the prosecution’s closing argument and the objection to the purported misstatement of what Clem said. The Commonwealth directs our attention to the objection, the ruling of the trial court to admonish the jury, Catlett’s counsel’s acceptance of 26 that admonition, and Catlett seeking no further relief following the admonition. The Commonwealth asserts Catlett received all the relief he requested and is not entitled to further relief on appeal. We agree. A review of Clem’s testimony is not required to resolve this issue. The parties disagreed over Clem’s testimony about the results of the second procedure concerning the ten particles. When the Commonwealth said the ten particles had all three elements including barium, lead, and antimony, Catlett objected, and counsel asked to approach the bench. At the bench there was considerable discussion about whether Clem said the ten particles had all three elements present or just two. The trial court concluded there was a difference over Clem’s testimony and advised the parties that he intended to admonish the jury. Catlett’s counsel accepted that decision and did not further object to the wording of the admonition or otherwise request additional relief. Catlett’s counsel remarked that was fine (in reference to the admonition), and said “thank you” before returning to the defense table. When a party objects, seeks relief, and relief is granted, there is no issue for appellate review unless the party makes clear to the trial court that they are not satisfied with the relief chosen. Catlett’s counsel was certainly satisfied with the relief the court gave in response to this objection. As we made clear in a similar circumstance: Instead, Appellant requested an admonition, and the trial court admonished the jury to disregard the testimony altogether. Appellant requested no other relief. As it appears that he “agreed with the trial court’s approach and did not request any further curative measures, he received all the relief that he requested; thus there is no error to review.” 27