Court Opinion

ID: 9640545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:07:57.744015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:30.692756
License: Public Domain

STEPHENS, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I concur with the majority’s enumeration of error, but as to the issue of prosecutorial misconduct, I would go further and admonish the prosecutor, on retrial, that certain additional conduct is unacceptable. First, the commonwealth’s attorney shall not challenge the defendant’s decision not to plead guilty, thus "forcing us through this process.” Transcript of Evidence [hereinafter TE] VIII 1063. The Court disapproved of this practice in Norton v. Commonwealth, Ky., 471 S.W.2d 302, 306 (1971).
Next, the prosecutor should not denigrate defendant’s counsel for being a public defender. Nor should he make a point of the public defender’s office representing another defendant sentenced to death, on appeal. The commonwealth attorney should not mislead the jury by equating the intoxication defense with a license to kill, when it works only to negate intent as the state of mind required for the highest degree of homicide, murder. He should also refrain from misleading the jury during the penalty phase about the defendant’s prospects for rehabilitation through counseling.
The prosecutor’s closing argument dinr-ing the penalty phase included a perverse comment on appellant’s religious faith as a mitigating factor.
If he’s sincere about his faith then his life doesn’t mean anything anymore. He’s made his amends with his maker. You can’t take that from him, and if he’s sincere about it he’ll be sincere when he’s strapped in the chair....
TE XIII 1712. Using a defendant’s religious faith as a reason to execute him is a contention which does not belong in a court of law in this Commonwealth. The commonwealth attorney should also avoid expressing his personal opinion that appellant deserved death. United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985).
The prosecutor questioned appellant at length about illegal drug transactions and his knowledge of drug lingo and prices, despite appellant’s motion in limine to prohibit questions about drug trafficking, which was sustained by the trial court. Apparently, the commonwealth attorney must be reminded of the importance of complying with trial court rulings.
Finally, a defendant should not be criticized to the jury for not disclosing a witness list to the Commonwealth. He or she is entitled to withhold this information. King v. Venters, Ky., 596 S.W.2d 721 (1980).
Overall, the prosecutor's trial tactics in this case were akin to guerilla warfare, and in my opinion, have no place in assuring this or any other defendant a fair trial. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that egregious prosecutional misconduct can amount to a denial of a defendant’s constitutional right of due process of law. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 107 S.Ct. 3102, 3109, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987), Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, *63643, 648-49, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 1871, 1873, 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974). The commonwealth attorney’s conduct fell far short of that which comports with the fundamental fairness requirement of due process.
Therefore, I would reverse appellant’s conviction on the above-mentioned additional grounds.
COMBS, and LEIBSON, JJ., join in this concurring opinion.