Opinion ID: 1369513
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: failure to bifurcate subsequent-offense enhancement.

Text: Harrison's counsel did not object when the trial court read the indictment to the jury, including that the charge of possession of drug paraphernalia was a second or subsequent offense. Nor did he object when the prosecutor repeated that information during opening statement. However, he did object when the prosecutor proposed to read the judgment of prior conviction to the jury during the guilt phase of the trial. Evidence of a prior conviction introduced only for enhancement purposes should always be reserved to the penalty phase of a trial. Commonwealth v. Ramsey, 920 S.W.2d 526 (Ky. 1996); Clay v. Commonwealth, 818 S.W.2d 264, 265-66 (Ky.1991). The trial court overruled the objection because the cat was already out of the bag and allowed the Commonwealth to introduce evidence of the prior conviction during the guilt phase, including the fact that one of the items of drug paraphernalia involved in the prior offense was a syringe. Since the present charge was also premised partially on the possession of a syringe, the prejudice is obvious. Harrison argued that he did not possess the syringe  but the jury knew that he had previously been convicted of the same offense for possessing a syringe. Even if Harrison waived mention of second or subsequent offense by the trial court and the prosecutor, those words were substantially less prejudicial to Harrison than the admission of the judgment of conviction and identification of the paraphernalia that led to that conviction. Upon retrial, evidence of the prior offense shall be reserved for the penalty phase.