Opinion ID: 1686201
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: was it error for the trial court to admit, as an aggravating circumstance, evidence of appellant's murder conviction which was in the process of being appealed?

Text: KRS 532.025(2)(a)(1) lists a prior record of conviction for a capital offense as an aggravating circumstance for which the death penalty may be imposed. During appellant's trial, the Commonwealth introduced evidence of this aggravator through the testimony of the Lyon Circuit Clerk. The clerk testified that he had certified records showing that appellant was convicted in Pike County, in 1974, of willful murder under KRS 435.010. [1] Appellant argues that the conviction from Pike County was improperly used as an aggravator because the 1974 conviction was not final. Appellant's trial for murder, robbery and escape was in 1986. In 1987, this Court stated that appellant's appeal from the Pike County willful murder conviction has never been dismissed. It is still pending. Thompson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 736 S.W.2d 319, 321 (1987). The language in KRS 532.025(2)(a)(1) refers to an aggravator as being a prior record of conviction. It has long been held by Kentucky courts that a conviction, which of course means the final judgment cannot be relied upon as a conviction if an appeal is being taken because an appeal in a criminal case suspends the judgment, and this does not become final until a termination of the appeal. Foure v. Commonwealth, 214 Ky. 620, 283 S.W. 958, 962 (1926). See also Commonwealth v. Duvall, Ky., 548 S.W.2d 832 (1977) (conviction that is being appealed is not final and cannot be used for impeachment purposes). More recently this Court has held that a prior conviction cannot be utilized under the truth-in-sentencing statute or the persistent felony offender statutes if an appeal is pending. Melson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 772 S.W.2d 631 (1989). Because appellant's appeal of the 1974 conviction was pending, it was improper for it to be used as an aggravating circumstance in KRS 532.025. As to this issue, a majority of the Court reverses. For the foregoing reasons this case is reversed and remanded for retrial in conformity with the opinion of this Court. COMBS, LAMBERT, REYNOLDS, and SPAIN, JJ., concur. STEPHENS, C.J., concurs in majority opinion with exception to Issue I and Issue II, and files a separate dissenting opinion with respect to Issue I and Issue II. WINTERSHEIMER, J., files a separate dissenting opinion. LEIBSON, J., not sitting.