Opinion ID: 2343191
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: introduction of information regarding prior convictions (# 4)

Text: During the capital sentencing phase of Appellant's trial, the Bullitt Circuit Court Clerk testified for the Commonwealth and read the entirety of the Oklahoma prosecutors' informations that led to Appellant's four (4) First-Degree Murder convictions and his Solicitation of Murder conviction. Although written in somewhat flowery prose, each murder information simply detailed: (1) the name of the defendant (and any co-defendant), (2) the date the offense was committed, (3) the offense charged, (4) the name of the victim, (5) the weapon used in each offense (a firearm), and, in the Murder informations, (6) the fact that the victim died. [4] We disagree with Appellant's contention that the trial court should have sustained his objection to this evidence, and hold that the trial court properly permitted its introduction. KRS 532.025(1)(a) provides that the judge shall hear additional evidence ... including the record of any prior criminal convictions and pleas of guilty or pleas of nolo contendere of the defendant. See also KRS 532.025(1)(b) (incorporating the same procedures for capital sentencing proceedings before a jury). We have previously explained that [t]he purpose of K.R.S. 532.025 is to allow evidence of all relevant and pertinent information so that the jury can make an informed decision concerning the appropriate sentence in a particular case. Templeman v. Commonwealth, Ky., 785 S.W.2d 259, 260 (1990). Furthermore, KRS 532.055(2)(a), which governs the penalty phases of all felony cases, [5] permits the Commonwealth to introduce evidence of [t]he nature of prior offenses for which [the defendant] was convicted. This Court has held that KRS 532.055(2)(a) permits the introduction of a general description of the crime. Robinson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 926 S.W.2d 853, 855 (1996). Because the language of the informations contained no more than a general description of Appellant's prior convictions, the trial court correctly overruled Appellant's objection.