Court Opinion

ID: 9770201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:54:15.478395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:15.751609
License: Public Domain

LEIBSON, Justice,
dissenting.
Respectfully, I dissent.
There are at least two separate errors in this case so substantial that we should be required to reverse and remand for a new trial.
I. EVIDENCE OF COLLATERAL CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
The record shows serious abuse of the rule of relevancy that evidence of the com*856mission of a crime other than the one charged is not admissible unless there are special circumstances establishing relevancy. The rule and the exceptions are discussed in Lawson, The Kentucky Evidence Law Handbook, 2d ed., § 2.20 (1984). There is, of course, an exception for “interwoven criminal acts” which would cover proof that guns obtained in one robbery were used in another, but the exception is only applicable “if the trial judge determines that the possibility of prejudice to the accused is outweighed by the probative worth and need for the evidence.” Lawson, supra.
Here there was no need for the evidence that the appellants were armed with guns from the burglary of the Guthrie Pawn Shop nine days before, none whatsoever. Both appellants gave both tape recorded and written statements in which they acknowledged that they were armed when they committed the present offenses, one statement described the weapons in detail, and throughout the trial the defense freely acknowledged anything and everything that could suggest a pretext for a “need” for this evidence. Although the trial judge excluded explicit references to the prior killing or murder at the Guthrie Pawn Shop, no reasonable and objective person can seriously question that the jury would assume the defendants were responsible for the crimes committed at the Guthrie Pawn Shop once the evidence identifying where their guns came from was admitted. These were two lurid and sensational crimes committed in adjacent rural counties, obviously well publicized. Indeed, eight of the jurors acknowledged familiarity with the Todd County burglaries. Once having been reminded of the burglary, surely they need not have been further reminded of the murder. Leaving aside for the moment error in refusing to strike these jurors for cause, once the proof came in that the guns used in the present case came from the Guthrie Pawn Shop, we can conclude the entire jury was not well aware of the whole episode, only closing our eyes and ears to the obvious truth. This we should never do just to reach a result, no matter how well intended.
In the circumstances of this case, admitting evidence that the guns the appellants used in the present offenses were stolen from the Guthrie Pawn Shop should be designated a prejudicial error.
II. JURY SELECTION
So much of what has been written in the Majority Opinion is either an incorrect statement of the law on jury selection or an unfair characterization of the jurors’ responses that we cannot cover the subject in a Dissenting Opinion of reasonable length.
Jurors served who should have been disqualified by their relationship to the victims, to the victims’ families, to attorneys, or to witnesses; who should have been disqualified because they had knowledge about the prior offense at the Guthrie Pawn Shop; who should have been disqualified because they were victims, or friends or relatives of victims, of offenses similar to the ones presently involved; and who should have been disqualified because their answers suggested they were not open minded on the subject of penalty. Although the Majority Opinion states that “[tjhere is no convincing evidence that any juror who heard the case was incompetent and should have been removed for cause,” at least two who should have been successfully challenged for cause sat in this case: one who was personally acquainted with the witness and another who would not consider the entire range of penalties.
I consider clearly erroneous the views now being expressed by our Court that there can be no prejudice when the trial court refuses a challenge for cause so long as the juror is excused by peremptory challenge. I have expressed my disagreement in two recent cases, Turpin v. Commonwealth, Ky., 780 S.W.2d 619 (1989), cert. denied — U.S. —, 110 S.Ct. 1530, 108 L.Ed.2d 769 (1990) and Marsch v. Commonwealth, Ky., 743 S.W.2d 830 (1988). “[I]t is error for a court to force a party to exhaust his peremptory challenges on persons who should be excused for cause, for this has the effect of abridging the right to exercise peremptory challenges.” United States v. Nell, 526 F.2d 1223, 1229 (5th Cir.1976). Such a denial or impairment of a right to peremptory challenges is reversible *857error without a further showing of prejudice. Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 85 S.Ct. 824, 825, 13 L.Ed.2d 759, overruled on other grounds, 381 U.S. 921, 85 S.Ct. 1528, 14 L.Ed.2d 442 (1965).
Once the number of peremptory challenges has been determined by law, whether by statute, rule, or otherwise, Kentucky and federal constitutional rights of equal protection and due process entitle the defendant to the right to exercise such peremptory challenges unencumbered by the presence of prospective jurors who should have been excused on challenge for cause. Our Court has disregarded this rule in erroneous reliance upon Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 108 S.Ct. 2273, 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988), reh. denied 487 U.S. 1250, 109 S.Ct. 11, 101 L.Ed.2d 962 (1988). Ross refused to apply the Fourteenth Amendment to protect the right to peremptory challenge, but only because of a special circumstance in Oklahoma law, viz., in Oklahoma “to preserve” error, a party must prove that “an incompetent juror [was] forced upon him.” 487 U.S. at 89, 108 S.Ct. at 2279. Historically, we in Kentucky have not required proof of such special circumstances, but now we have flip-flopped our law by reasoning backwards from Ross v. Oklahoma to add this requirement. As I stated in Turpin v. Commonwealth, supra:
“Until now the law in Kentucky has always been to the contrary, that prejudice is presumed and the defendant is entitled to a reversal in those cases where a defendant is forced to exhaust his peremptory challenges against prospective jurors who should have been excused for cause.” 780 S.W.2d at 626, Leibson, J., Dissenting.
In my opinion, there is no individual right guaranteed to our citizens under the constitution more important than trial by an impartial jury. The decisions of our Court should be directed toward insuring that right rather than eroding it. We are marching in the wrong direction.
COMBS, J., joins this dissent.