Court Opinion

ID: 9772187
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:09:43.837829+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:42.488659
License: Public Domain

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING
March 24, 1994
In this petition for rehearing, the petitioner asserts three points at which he feels this Court failed to adequately review his appeal of his sentence of death in the murders of a Fayette County man and woman and the wounding of their two-year-old son. The petitioner first claims that it was error for this Court not to reverse for failure of the trial court to give instructions on mitigating circumstances. On appeal this Court did fully review this issue, and stated that it was not error for the trial judge not to give such instructions where the evidence in no way supported the contention that the mitigators in question were present in petitioner’s situation.
Second, petitioner contends that this Court failed to adequately review the trial court’s failure to provide specific instructions to the jury on extreme emotional disturbance, mental disease or defect, and intoxication. We disagree with the petitioner and feel that this issue was fully reviewed using all applicable law, on appeal to this Court. It was held by this Court that there was not sufficient evidence in the record to support an instruction on extreme emotional disturbance in the guilt phase. Furthermore, there is nothing in the opinion of this Court to support the bald assertion by the petitioner that he was penalized for choosing not to testify.
Lastly,' the petitioner claims that this Court incorrectly affirmed the manner in which the prosecution addressed the jury’s role in imposing the death penalty and failed to apply Clark v. Commonwealth, Ky., 833 S.W.2d 793 (1991). We disagree. This issue was thoroughly reviewed and the precedent supplied by Clark was explored, but found inapplicable to this situation for reasons stated in our opinion.
It also has been brought to this Court’s attention that page nine of our opinion may cause confusion as to which side requested a transferred intent instruction. The opinion seems to imply that the instruction was requested by the defense; in reality it was the Commonwealth that requested the instruction. Although the opinion is hereby modified by the substitution of a new page nine, there was no error at the trial court level.
Finding that this petition for rehearing brings to light no overlooked material fact from the record, reveals no controlling statute or decision that was misapplied, nor illuminates an issue or law that was miscon-*186eeived on appeal, the petition for rehearing is denied.
It is so ORDERED.
STEPHENS, C.J., LAMBERT, REYNOLDS, SPAIN and WINTERSHEIMER, JJ., concur.
LEIBSON and STUMBO, JJ., would grant petition for rehearing.
ENTERED: March 24, 1994.
/s/Robert F. Stephens ROBERT F. STEPHENS, Chief Justice