Court Opinion

ID: 9671833
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:43:46.126445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:12.354158
License: Public Domain

WINTERSHEIMER, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because none of the alleged errors cited are of sufficient importance to require reversal.
Eldred failed to demonstrate that the trial judge abused his sound discretion when he refused to continue the trial for an additional sixty days. The trial judge did postpone the trial for one week to permit any additional investigation by defense counsel. Eldred has failed to show how the refusal of the trial judge to further delay the trial prejudiced the defendant’s ability to defend himself against the charges. Whether a continuance is appropriate in a particular case depends upon the unique facts and circumstances of that case, and the decision to delay a trial rests solely within the sound discretion of the trial judge. RCr 9.04; Snodgrass v. Commonwealth, Ky., 814 S.W.2d 579 (1991). The detailed review of the decision of the trial judge in this regard made by the majority opinion does not convince me that there is any error such as would be condemned by Snodgrass, supra. A review of the record indicates that the trial judge exercised his discretion properly in determining whether to allow a delay and considered the length of the delay, previous continuances, inconvenience to litigants and the court, whether the delay is purposeful or caused by the accused, the complexity of the case and whether denying the continuance would lead to identifiable prejudice. There is no basis to reverse the conviction in this case.
The trial judge properly excluded evidence of the general mental condition of Moore and Melton because there was no demonstration by the defendant that any psychiatric problems could be related to their credibility. I do not believe that any avenue of investigation was prematurely terminated by the trial judge.
*710Commonwealth v. Huber, Ky., 711 S.W.2d 490 (1986), states in pertinent part as follows:
The prior mental treatment of a witness is not relevant as to the credibility of that witness unless it can be demonstrated that there was a mental deficiency on the part of the witness, either at the time of the testimony or at the time of the matter being testified about. The mere fact that a particular witness has been treated for any kind of psychiatric problem in the past is of no significance in the impeachment of that witness unless it can be shown that the psychiatric problems relate in some way to the credibility of the witness.
The standard of Huber, supra, was not satisfied in regard to the general mental condition of either of the two witnesses. Thus the evidence was properly excluded. Cf. Stanford v. Commonwealth, Ky., 798 S.W.2d 112 (1990). The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the discovery sought.
Eldred has failed to demonstrate that there was any improper introduction into evidence of prior bad acts or character evidence which would require a reversal. None of the complained of statements during the trial deprived Eldred of a fundamentally fair trial. The statements which are alleged as error are either unpreserved, were relevant for the jury to hear or were otherwise introduced into the proceedings as a result of the trial strategy of the defendant.
I agree with the majority that there is no double jeopardy in this case because murder and first-degree arson require proof of an element the other does not. However, the double jeopardy analysis in Ingram v. Commonwealth, Ky., 801 S.W.2d 321 (1990), is still fatally flawed because it relies on Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 110 S.Ct. 2084, 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), which has been subsequently overruled in United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993). This has been duly noted by the majority opinion. It is time to put Ingram to rest by overruling it. The same fate should fall to Walden v. Commonwealth, Ky., 805 S.W.2d 102 (1991). I believe Kentucky should return to the reasoning of Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) and the standard set out in Wilson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 695 S.W.2d 854 (1985) and Polk v. Commonwealth, Ky., 679 S.W.2d 231 (1984). See my dissent in Ingram.
I would affirm the conviction in all respects.
FUQUA, J., joins in this dissent.