Court Opinion

ID: 9943385
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 15:15:01.790056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:55.514475
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: FEBRUARY 16, 2024; 10:00 A.M.
                       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                           Court of Appeals

                             NO. 2023-CA-0323-MR

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                             APPELLANT

                APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
v.               HONORABLE BRIAN C. EDWARDS, JUDGE
                       ACTION NO. 21-CR-001166

ROBERT MCDOWELL                                                        APPELLEE

                                OPINION
                        VACATING AND REMANDING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: EASTON, KAREM, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.

KAREM, JUDGE: The Commonwealth of Kentucky appeals from an opinion and

order of the Jefferson Circuit Court granting Robert W. McDowell Jr.’s motion to

exclude statements and identifications made by a shooting victim identifying

McDowell as the perpetrator. The Commonwealth argues that the trial court

abused its discretion in ruling that the statements were not admissible under the
dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule.1 Upon careful review, we vacate

and remand for further findings.

                FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

               On the afternoon of February 24, 2021, Rayshaun Peyton was shot

eleven times as he walked down the sidewalk in Louisville. Peyton, who was

twenty-two years of age, suffered gunshot wounds to his left chest wall, his right

eye and mouth, his left inner thigh, his right inner thigh, his testicles, and his penis.

He was transported to the University of Louisville Hospital where he was placed in

the Intensive Care Unit. CT scans showed the bullets had fractured his ribs and

vertebrae, causing a spinal cord injury that rendered him quadriplegic. Surgery

was performed to repair his right superficial femoral artery and the injuries to his

penis and scrotum, and he was put in a medically-induced coma and placed on

mechanical ventilation. Peyton’s parents were allowed to stay with their son 24

hours per day, against COVID-19 protocols in place at the time. Peyton’s father,

Rolando, testified, this was “due to the situation; they didn’t know if he was going

to make it or not.”

               On March 12, 2021, Peyton was removed from the medically-induced

coma. At that time the doctors removed the ventilator and replaced it with a

1
  We note that McDowell’s motion asserted a violation of his 6th Amendment Confrontation
Right even if the statements qualified as dying declarations. The circuit court and the parties on
this appeal did not address this, which remains an open question under Kentucky law. Lewis v.
Commonwealth, 475 S.W.3d 26, 37 n.6 (Ky. 2015).

                                                -2-
tracheostomy tube, which allowed him to speak for the first time since the

shooting. On that day, and the days that immediately followed, Peyton made the

statements and identifications that are at issue in the case sub judice. The trial

court described Peyton’s first statement as follows:

             During this period of improvement, Mr. Peyton’s father
             testified that on March 12, 2021, he asked Mr. Peyton
             “who did this to you[?]” to which Mr. Peyton responded,
             “Bobby shot me.”

Rolando, hoping to discover the identity of “Bobby,” enlisted the help of his niece.

She found a social media post relating to Peyton’s shooting which Rolando, in turn

showed to Peyton, at some point after March 12, 2021, but before March 15, 2021.

Rolando testified that, upon seeing the post, Peyton was reluctant to name the

shooter. However, he further testified that although his son didn’t want to name

the shooter, “we were going to do this today because I didn’t know if my son

would be here tomorrow.” Ultimately, Peyton identified his shooter and Rolando

passed the name along to the lead detective on the case.

             On March 15, 2021, two detectives visited Peyton and presented him

with a six-person photo pack. Peyton’s condition ebbed and flowed during this

time, and on March 15, 2021, he was not capable of speaking. But he selected

McDowell from the photo pack by nodding his head and raising his eyebrows.

             Dr. Daniel Dierfeldt, a palliative care physician, testified that on

March 19, 2021, he was notified that Peyton was one step from a code blue, a

                                          -3-
medical term for death. Dr. Dierfeldt explained that his role was to support the

patient and his family. Dr. Dierfeldt described the prognosis at that time as “very,

very dire.” He told Peyton’s mother that Peyton was having difficulty making a

recovery and that he might not survive. Dr. Dierfeldt testified that Peyton was

unable to breathe without the machines and he was unable to move because he was

quadriplegic. He told Peyton’s mother that if care was withdrawn Peyton would

live for minutes or hours, and if care continued, he would live for weeks or

months. Peyton’s parents ultimately decided not to withdraw care.

             Peyton was discharged from the hospital on April 10, 2021. He was

transferred to several facilities over the following months. Peyton died on January

25, 2022, approximately ten months after he identified McDowell as the shooter.

             On June 7, 2021, McDowell was indicted for criminal attempted

murder, assault in the first degree, and possession of a handgun by a convicted

felon. His attorney moved to exclude all statements made by Peyton to Rolando

and the police as inadmissible hearsay. The Commonwealth filed a response,

arguing in part that the statements were admissible as a dying declaration. After

hearing testimony from Dr. Dierfeldt and Peyton’s parents, the trial court entered

an order granting McDowell’s motion. The trial court based its decision on two

factors: first, that a lengthy period elapsed between the time the statements were

made and Peyton’s death, and second, that Peyton’s condition had improved at the

                                         -4-
time he made the statements incriminating McDowell. This appeal by the

Commonwealth followed.

                             STANDARD OF REVIEW

             “[W]e may reverse a trial court’s decision to admit evidence only if

that decision represents an abuse of discretion.” Clark v. Commonwealth, 223

S.W.3d 90, 95 (Ky. 2007). An abuse of the court’s discretion only occurs if its

ruling is “arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal

principles.” Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999). When,

as in this case, the trial court conducted a lengthy evidentiary hearing, its findings

of fact are reviewed for clear error. Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR)

52.01; Turner v. Commonwealth, 5 S.W.3d 119, 122 (Ky. 1999), as modified (Dec.

16, 1999). A finding is not clearly erroneous if it is supported by substantial

evidence. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Golightly, 976 S.W.2d 409, 414 (Ky.

1998).

                                      ANALYSIS

             Hearsay is “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while

testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter

asserted.” Kentucky Rules of Evidence (KRE) 801(c). A statement is defined as

“[a]n oral or written assertion; or . . . [n]onverbal conduct of a person, if it is

intended by the person as an assertion.” KRE 801(a). The parties agree that

                                           -5-
Peyton’s verbal identifications of McDowell as the shooter to his father and his

subsequent nonverbal identification of McDowell in the photo pack qualify as

hearsay prompting McDowell to ask the court to exclude the statements.

McDowell styled his motion before the court as, “Motion In Limine to Exclude All

Statements and Identifications Made By Mr. Rayshaun Peyton to Witnesses and/or

Investigating Officers as Inadmissible Hearsay.” The Commonwealth responded

in kind and the court ultimately ruled as follows:

             The Commonwealth has presented no authority in
             support of their contention that these statements made 10
             months prior to Mr. Peyton’s death can qualify as dying
             declarations.

(Emphasis added.) The court and parties erroneously treated the various

statements of Payton as one whole statement when in reality Peyton made three

distinct and individual statements.

             Hearsay is generally not admissible, but an exception exists for “a

statement made by a declarant while believing that the declarant’s death was

imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to

be his impending death.” KRE 804(b)(2) (emphasis added). The exception is

made for these types of statements because they are seen as being uniquely

reliable:

             Dying declarations are admitted as evidence because . . .
             the immediate expectation on the part of one making it
             will silence every motive for falsehood, remove every

                                         -6-
             feeling for revenge, and operate most powerfully upon
             the mind to cause it to adhere strictly to the truth; the
             solemnity of the occasion being looked upon and
             regarded as in a measure obviating the necessity, and
             taking the place, of the sanctity of an oath.

Kelly v. Commonwealth, 119 S.W. 809, 810 (Ky. 1909) (citation omitted).

             The state of mind of the declarant is of paramount importance in

determining whether a statement qualifies as a dying declaration.

             The vital question in each case is: Did the one making
             the statement, at the time it was made, believe that he
             would die from the effects of the injury, and had he given
             up all hope of recovery? Where these two questions have
             been answered in the affirmative, the declaration has
             invariably been admitted. The fact that the one making it
             lived a few hours or several days does not properly enter
             into a consideration of the question, the lapse of time
             between the statement and the death not being regarded
             as material, but the state of mind of the one making the
             declaration is the all-important question.

Id. (emphasis added).

             Using this analysis, testimony of events following the statements are

inconsequential. The only mandatory subsequent event to be considered by the

court is the declarant’s death. Clearly, events following a statement could not have

influenced the declarant's state of mind at the time each declaration was made.

And the rule itself mandates the analysis focus on the state of mind of the declarant

when the statement was made.

                                         -7-
               The trial court understandably, based on arguments by counsel,

treated Peyton’s statements as a whole. However, the testimony is clear that

Peyton made three separate statements; the first to his father upon awakening from

the medically induced coma on March 12th; the second, sometime after March

12th but before March 15th, again to his father; and the third on March 15th to the

detectives when presented with a photo pack. The court must analyze each of the

three statements individually, deciding as to each if it should be admitted as a

hearsay exception.

               The trial court’s conclusion2 – that there was simply insufficient

evidence to show Peyton believed he was in imminent danger of death when he

made the statements incriminating McDowell – is a general conclusion regarding

Peyton’s three statements and as such is vacated. The court must analyze each of

the three statements individually and make findings on each.

                                       CONCLUSION

               For the foregoing reasons, the Jefferson Circuit Court’s order granting

McDowell’s motion in limine is vacated and this matter is remanded back to the

trial court. The trial court shall make findings as to each of the three statements

McDowell seeks to exclude holding evidentiary hearings if necessary.

2
  While the trial court commented on the declarant’s condition when the statements were made,
the commentary focused on the intervening period between the statements and death. The trial
court did not make a specific finding as to whether the declarant believed he would die as a result
of his injuries.

                                               -8-
            ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:          BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Daniel Cameron                 Jared Travis Bewley
Attorney General of Kentucky   Frankfort, Kentucky

Rachel S. Wright
Matthew Kuhn
Assistant Attorneys General
Frankfort, Kentucky

                               -9-