Court Opinion

ID: 9641865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:41:47.097602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:40.390324
License: Public Domain

CUSICK, Special Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Brian Keith Moore was convicted in the Jefferson Circuit Court of murder, kidnapping and robbery of a 77-year-old man who had gone to the market to buy bananas for his ice cream store. The evidence indicated that Moore transported the victim over nine miles to a wooded area in southern Jefferson County where he killed him with four shots to the head, one of which was a contact wound. The circumstances surrounding these crimes amply confirm that the jury could reasonably disbelieve appellant’s claim of intoxication. Further, the execution of the victim bespeaks a callousness for human life from which the jury might well determine that the offenses were deserving of the death penalty. The discussion which follows should not be taken to indicate that the author entertains any doubt concerning the appropriateness of the death penalty in this case.
It is the evidentiary context in which the sentencing jury was required to act which compels the conclusion, in my opinion, that another jury should be seated to hear the penalty phase of the trial. During the guilt phase of the trial, a defense witness stated:
“The reason I recall this here is because in the summer of ’82 Brian Moore come (sic) off death row, I guess, in this case.”
On cross-examination that defense witness remarked unresponsively,
“An he made a statement that that’s the reason he was over on death row, was because Kenny Blair — Kenneth Blair testified against him that he killed somebody.”
There is no reason to believe that these statements were deliberately inserted in the testimony to poison the record. Rather, they appear to be an unfortunate effort by an inarticulate witness to explain the context of his testimony. Following this testimony, defense counsel did not request an admonition even when it was suggested by the prosecutor and none was given. This was a conscious tactical decision by defense counsel and waived, at least for the guilt phase of the trial, any argument that an admonition should have been given.
Appellant properly declines to argue that this constituted reversible error, but does contend that a new jury should have been impaneled for the sentencing stage in order to avoid any effect of the quoted testimony on the sentencing decision. The issue was preserved by an appropriate motion before the sentencing phase commenced.
I disagree with the majority’s characterization that the quoted statements did not rise to the degree of the prejudicial statements in United States v. Williams, 568 F.2d 464 (5th Cir.1978) or Arthur v. Bodenkircher, 715 F.2d 118 (4th Cir.1983). Rather, the testimony that Appellant was already on death row in this case, and that this condition was based on the testimony of Kenneth Blair, informed the jury that another jury hearing apparently the same or similar evidence, had already decided that Moore should die for his crimes. That the error in Williams arose from a newspaper article, and in Bodenkircher from a jury instruction, is unimportant. The basis of decision in both cases is the exposure of the jury to influences which the court may not countenance.
A jury impaneled in the sentencing phase of a capital case is engaged in the most constitutionally sensitive endeavor with which the Commonwealth entrusts its citizens. “From the point of view of society, the action of the sovereign in taking the life of one of its citizens also differs dramatically from any other state action. It is of vital importance to the defendant and the community that any decision to impose the death penalty be, and appear to be, based on reason rather than caprice or emotion.” Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 359, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 1205, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977). As I reflected above, I suggest *44no doubt that death may be considered an appropriate penalty in this case. It is far from clear, however, to what extent the jury may have been influenced in the selection of an appropriate penalty by having been informed that another group of citizens, burdened with the same decision, had preceded them in determining that Brian Moore should receive the death penalty. We have no means of determining on review whether that knowledge had an impact on the jury or not. It is difficult to believe that the prior sentencing decision would have no effect on the deliberation of twelve conscientious citizens aware of the gravity of what they were deciding. Perhaps the “leadership” of the earlier jury did not enter into the group dynamics of the later one, but we should not presume that is true. It simply cannot be reliably determined on this record and that lack of reliability should preclude affirmance of the sentence. See, Gardner, Id. (Mr. Justice White concurring), and Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976).
The Appellant was entitled to a sentencing decision based on a carefully controlled record reasonably free of influences which could lead the jury to impose the death penalty for the wrong reason. That the decision it made appears reasonable or appropriate to the reviewing court is not equivalent to determining that the latter jury was not assisted in its decision by its knowledge of the former jury’s action.
Accordingly, I would concur with the majority in affirming Moore’s conviction, but would reverse and require that a new jury1 be impaneled to hear the sentencing phase of the trial and independently determine an appropriate sentence.

. While the decision in Skaggs v. Commonwealth, Ky., 694 S.W.2d 672 (1985) is not on point, it demonstrates that the court can employ a new jury in the sentencing phase of a capital case consistent with the language of KRS 532.-025(1)(a).