Court Opinion

ID: 9488799
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:55:52.661592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:06.443890
License: Public Domain

MERRITT, Chief Judge,
concurring.
Defendant Charles West lived with Alice Schira, the victim’s mother, on her horse farm in Kentucky. Defendant moved in with Ms. Schira and the victim, her son Jimmy Schira, several months before Defendant West killed Jimmy Schira, allegedly in self-defense. Jimmy Schira was 22 years old, had numerous emotional and drug problems and suffered from mood swings, depression, including suicide attempts, and violent behavior. Due to this violent behavior, his mother, Alice, decided Jimmy must leave the farm. Shortly before Jimmy died, Alice had made arrangements for Jimmy to move to Colorado where he had lived previously. On the day he died, Jimmy asked his girlfriend to marry him and move to Colorado with him. She declined.
That evening, Defendant maintains that as he sat with Jimmy in the kitchen, Jimmy threatened to kill Alice and Defendant. Alice was upstairs in her bedroom. Defendant then ran upstairs to the bedroom he shared with Alice, told her that Jimmy threatened to shoot them and retrieved a gun that he kept in the bedroom. When Defendant returned to the kitchen, he testified that Jimmy pulled a gun on him. Defendant then fired three shots, two of which hit Jimmy and killed him. One shot entered Jimmy’s jaw behind his left ear and came out his nose. The other entered his left shoulder blade. A third entered the kitchen window frame. Jimmy managed to leave the kitchen before he died in the yard. A fully loaded gun was found near where Jimmy was initially shot in the kitchen.
The medical examiner testified that he could not say conclusively how Defendant and the victim were situated when the shooting occurred. The examiner testified that it is possible that Jimmy was facing toward petitioner with his head turned to the right so that the first shot entered his jaw/neck area and the force of the first shot spun him around so that the second shot entered his back. The other possibility is that Jimmy was shot from behind while his back was turned from Defendant. There is also discrepancy in the testimony as to the timing of the shots, with the defendant stating that he shot all three shots rapidly in succession and Alice claiming she heard one shot, a hesi*86tation and then two more shots. There is also some conflict as to whether the loaded, but unfired, gun found near where Jimmy was first shot could have been “planted” by Defendant. Fingerprint evidence was inconclusive.
Defendant was charged with “intentional murder” and claimed self-defense. At trial, the prosecutor made numerous provocative statements during closing. Some of the harshest examples delivered during the prosecutor’s closing argument include:
[Defendant West] is a back of the track stud to take care of [Alice Schira] and to take care of the farm and to work and perform the duties.
(Tr. Trans, at 1105, Joint Appendix at 4141) And:
[Defendant’s lawyer] makes a big to do that the indictment don’t [sic] mean a thing. Well, it’s not a good conduct medal.
(Tr. Trans, at 1083, J.A. at 393)
The prosecutor also attempted to put forth a theory, for which he had introduced no direct evidence during trial, that Defendant and the victim’s mother conspired to kill the victim, implying that Defendant’s motive was to become the beneficiary of Alice Sehira’s will upon the death of her son. The prosecutor mentioned Alice Schira, who had not been charged with a crime, numerous times throughout his closing in an effort to paint her as an uncaring, bad mother who loved her boyfriend [Defendant West] more than she loved her son and wanted her son out of her way. In this vein the prosecutor stated,
[T]his was a planned, framed murder on the part of Charlie West and they had talked, Alice Schira.
(Tr. Trans, at 1080, J.A. at 390) And:
This is a deliberate, intentional murder set-up by these people_ [T]his caséis one of ... intentional murder to benefit Charles West and Alice Schira, a convicted felon [Defendant] and a person married to a detective who knows how the methods of the police work. [Alice Sehira’s late husband had been a law enforcement officer.]
(Tr. Trans, at 1113, J.A. at 422) And:
[Defendant West] can have the will changed any time Alice wants it changed, and that’s what he will work for if he is not convicted in this case.
(Tr. Trans, at 1081, J.A. at 391) The prosecutor also implied that the victim’s mother had something to hide because she called her lawyer right after the shooting:
Why did she need a lawyer? Innocent people don’t need lawyers. Justice will prevail.
(Tr. Trans, at 1102, page missing from Joint Appendix) Defense counsel objected and the trial court sustained the objection and admonished the jury. The prosecutor also attempted to mislead the jury about the victim’s mother by pointing out that she had not been in the courtroom during the entire trial even though the prosecutor knew that Alice Schira had been banned from the courtroom subject to a witness separation order:
This is the only murder case I can remember when no one of the family, no girlfriend, mother, father, or any person sit [sic] there in the interest of the victim that was shot down.... [Njobody caring enough about [the victim] to be here to look after his interest.... Another thing about Alice, she hasn’t been in this courtroom one day except when she testified to sit with the Commonwealth or to sit with her lover.
(Tr. Trans, at 1079-81, 1105, J.A. at 389-91, 414) Defense counsel objected, the objections were sustained and the trial court explained to the jury that Alice Schira was banned from the courtroom by court order.
The prosecutor also made improper references to the defense lawyers when he stated:
I’m a country lawyer and I can’t do as good as these good high priced defense lawyers....
(Tr. Trans, at 1117, J.A. at 426) When defense counsel objected and the judge sustained the objection the prosecutor retorted *87to the trial judge, “I could call them cheap but I won’t.” Id.
In sum, the prosecutor’s closing argument was filled with overstatements and irrelevant or erroneous innuendos from start to finish. Defendant’s counsel did not move for a mistrial. The jury found Defendant guilty of “intentional murder” and he was sentenced to 22 years imprisonment.
Although I agree with the Court’s decision, I do not believe that the statements required the trial court to grant a mistrial even if defense counsel had made a mistrial motion. The prosecutor made wild statements in violation of Kentucky’s rules and the trial judge so informed the jury, but the comments were not so egregious as to violate the Due Process Clause.

. References to the Joint Appendix filed in this case will be cited herein as "J.A. at_"