Court Opinion

ID: 9883823
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:21:03.787499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:31.775834
License: Public Domain

LEIBSON, J.,
concurring in part/dissenting in part.
I concur in Parts II, IV and V of the Majority Opinion, and in the results, which is to reverse and remand for a new trial.
Respectfully, I dissent from Parts I and III. Part I affirms the decision of the trial court to deny a change of venue, and Part III affirms the decision of the trial court to refuse a “choice of evils” instruction.
CHANGE OF VENUE
Failing to grant the motion for change of venue was an abuse of discretion, if not initially, then most certainly at the point where it was renewed and it had been established that all of the potential jurors were aware, in varying degrees, of the news media accounts of the escape, some were aware of the murders in Tennessee by two of the other escapees, and at least one was aware of the “shoot out” which took place when some of the appellants were recaptured.
Proof of the need for a change of venue was overwhelming and compelling, and es*722sentially uncontradicted except for general denials found in the pro forma affidavits submitted by the Commonwealth. Our Court must accept responsibility for recognizing there is some point where a trial court’s refusal to grant a change of venue is so fundamentally unfair that such refusal denies the accused his right to a “fair trial” and an “impartial jury” guaranteed to persons accused of a crime by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Section 11 of the Kentucky Constitution. The specific language in Section 11 directing the General Assembly to “provide by general law for a change of venue ... to the most convenient county in which a fair trial can be obtained” reinforces this view. These important constitutional rights deserve more from the judiciary than mere lip service.
The constitutional mandate to this Court is to enforce this right, not to inhibit it. The plain fact is these appellants had been tried and convicted by the news coverage before the trial ever began. The local community may demand to try the case, as it is, saturated by news coverage and among people who have by and large prejudged it, but that is all the more reason why the accused is entitled to the protection afforded by the right to a change of venue. I question whether locally elected trial judges, called on to decide this issue of change of venue so vitally important to achieving an impartial jury, faced with pressure from the community to take care of its own, can really be objective in ruling on a change of venue. Most certainly I do not accede to a presumption they are in a better position to be objective about denying a change of venue than is the appellate court. The Majority has cited to the right cases on this subject, Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961), Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 14 L.Ed.2d 543 (1965), and Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966), but it has reached the wrong results.
Brewster v. Commonwealth, Ky., 568 S.W.2d 232 (1978), cited in the Majority Opinion was a case where the accused felt compelled to forego his right to trial by jury and accede to a bench trial after his change of venue was denied. Yet Brewster states:
“Specifically, the appellant relies upon the landmark case of Sheppard v. Maxwell, [citation omitted], in which the United States Supreme Court held that ‘... where there is a reasonable likelihood that prejudicial news prior to trial will prevent a fair trial, the judge should continue the case until the threat abates, or transfer it to another county not so permeated with publicity.’
[A] showing of actual prejudice is unnecessary if the procedure involves such a probability that prejudice will result [from newspaper ‘accounts or descriptions of the investigation’] that it is deemed inherently lacking in due process. Estes v. Texas, [citation omitted].” Id. at 235.
As we do here, in Brewster we recognized the letter of the law but left it a hollow shell. Appellant met the requirements in Sheppard by showing (1) there was prejudicial news coverage; (2) it occurred prior to trial; and (3) the effect of such coverage is reasonably likely to prevent a fair trial. Id.
This case was tried in a small, rural community where there was a strong probability that many or most prospective jurors would have some connection with this major institution, the maximum security prison, where the offenses were committed. The likelihood that those in the jury pool would be connected in some way with the case, with the events that took place, either directly or indirectly through family and friends, when joined with the pretrial news media coverage, makes the probability of prejudice overpowering. KRS 452.210 mandates that “if it appears that the defendant ... cannot have a fair trial in the county where the prosecution is pending,” the trial judge “shall” upon application of the defendant ..., order the trial to be held” elsewhere. It is one thing to say the trial judge has “discretion” in the matter, and quite another to make that discretion unlimited by failing to “call the play” when it is abused. Such unlimited discretion *723may satisfy the local community’s thirst for vengeance, but it is no substitute for justice.
Recently in my Dissenting Opinion in Whitler v. Commonwealth, Ky., 810 S.W.2d 505 (1991), I stated:
“Certainly, it is much easier to arrange to move cases from one county to another now than it was ... 200 years ago when the right to trial by an ‘impartial jury’ was guaranteed by our first Kentucky Constitution. If anything, there is more reason now, rather than less reason, to demand trial judges move case from a community where the circumstances of the offense have been widely reported on and discussed. A neutral jury, which is our constitutional guarantee, is one that will decide the case on the evidence presented in open court rather than the knowledge and opinion that the jurors bring in with them to court.”
The circumstances in the record before us call for a change of venue, and we should reverse the trial court for refusing it.
“CHOICE OF EVILS” INSTRUCTION
As stated in the Majority Opinion:
“At trial the appellants conceded their escape from KSP, and argued, as their sole defense, that they were compelled to do so because they were suspected by fellow inmates of being responsible for assaults committed against two other inmates about two months before the escape took place, and were about to be released from protective custody into the general prison population in circumstances where they would either kill or be killed by friends of these two inmates who were threatening their lives.”
The Majority concludes “the appellants’ proof is insufficient to establish that injury was so ‘imminent’ as to require the giving of [a ‘choice of evils’] instruction.” I disagree.
The appellants established by competent evidence that there were death threats out on each of them as recently as the day preceding their escape, that the nature of the threats was that as soon as they were released from Three Cellhouse back to the general population, they would be killed, and that they had no choice or control over when they would be so released.
The testimony of the appellants present a prima facie case satisfying the requirements of KRS 503.030, which provides “an offense [which, of course, includes escape from lawful confinement] is justifiable when the defendant believes it to be necessary to avoid an imminent public or private injury greater than the injury which is sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense charged.”
Our decision in this case should be controlled by Pittman v. Commonwealth, Ky., 512 S.W.2d 488 (1974), where we held a defendant entitled to a “choice of evils” instruction as provided for in KRS 503.030 in circumstances substantially identical to the present situation. As here, Pittman escaped from the Kentucky State Penitentiary, and admitted his guilt, attempting to justify his conduct in testimony that he was threatened with homosexual assault if he did not repay a gambling debt to another prisoner. We reversed this conviction because the trial court refused to instruct on whether his escape was justified under the circumstances, stating:
“The validity and submissibility of the defense must rest on imminent, impending danger to life or great bodily harm based on a well-grounded apprehension. The credibility and probative weight of the evidence introduced of the existence of the elements of the defense are for the jury to assess.” Id. at 490.
The question here was not whether the testimony of the defendants was credible. The Commonwealth argued vehemently that the appellants’ failure to turn themselves in proved it was not. But this evidence goes to credibility, whereas it is the appellants’ evidence that determines their right to an instruction. Even if it is unlikely the result would have been different, it is the duty of the court “by the instructions to give to the accused the opportunity for the jury to determine the merits of any lawful defense which he has.” Curtis v. *724Commonwealth, 169 Ky. 727, 184 S.W. 1105, 1107 (1916); Brown v. Commonwealth, Ky., 555 S.W.2d 252, 257 (1977).
Remanding for a new trial while denying the appellants their right to a “choice of evils” instructions is more or less an exercise in futility, because they present no other defense. Accepting that it may have some value because an impartial jury may assess less punishment, nevertheless the appellants must feel they have achieved an empty victory.
COMBS, J., joins the dissenting opinion as to Part I.