Opinion ID: 6105180
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Testimony suggesting Corbin was intoxicated.

Text: At trial, the Commonwealth had the following exchange with Michelle regarding her interaction with Corbin at their home: C: What state of mind was [Corbin] in when he left? M: I assumed him to be wild. I don’t know on what or how much or anything like that I just know he wasn’t himself. C: You said he was wild, what do you mean by that? M: Intoxicated. Intoxicated on something. 15 C: What’s your basis for saying that? You’ve seen him intoxicated before? M: Yes. C: On what? M: Name it, I’ve seen him intoxicated on a lot of things. He’s probably seen me as well, you know. C: What did he appear to you to be under the influence of that day? M: Maybe meth. C: Do you believe that he was under the influence of methamphetamines that day? M: I believe he was under the influence of something. It could have been pills, it could have been anything. Corbin argues Michelle’s testimony was unduly prejudicial because drug use is a felony in the Commonwealth, and any probative value was outweighed by the negative light her testimony cast on his character. The Commonwealth counters by stating that, at the time of Michelle’s testimony, Corbin was charged with fleeing or evading in the first degree while being intoxicated under KRS 520.095(1)(a)2 and his state of mind, as well as whether he was under the influence, was probative and relevant to the charge. We agree with the Commonwealth. Further, Michelle’s testimony was based on considerable personal experience with Corbin, including his erratic behavior during their exchange at the house, and was material to proving the first-degree fleeing or evading charge. Additionally, we note that even if the trial court should have struck the testimony from the record, the jury acquitted Corbin of the relevant charge. Corbin’s ancillary argument that the jury’s decision to recommend the maximum sentence on each of his convictions necessarily dictates a finding that Michelle’s testimony was unduly prejudicial is similarly unpersuasive. 16 The Commonwealth presented a wealth of testimonial and direct evidence to support each of Corbin’s convictions, and this short exchange between Michelle and the Commonwealth does not mar the jury’s decisions or recommendations.