Court Opinion

ID: 9649260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:46:59.885812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:45.100587
License: Public Domain

COMBS, Justice,
dissenting.
Believing that these defendants were not afforded a fair trial, I respectfully dissent.
1. Police officers, however experienced in the investigation of concrete facts, are not qualified to express a testimonial opinion as to a defendant’s mental state. Ordinarily, and certainly in this case, the jury is fully competent to determine from the objective evidence alone whether the facts prove culpable intent. In the event that expertise is required on this issue, it must be provided by a competent, neutral psychologist or psychiatrist, not by an investigating officer. Here, the so-called expert opinions were nothing more than bootstrap conclusions based merely upon the officers’ own likely-biased opinions about previous cases; they simply beg the question.
Consider a criminal homicide case in which the mental state of the defendant is a prominent issue. According to the majority’s rationale, a police detective (or perhaps a private detective? or an experienced amateur?) would be permitted to testify not only as to his/her factual observations, but also that in his/her opinion the defendant acted intentionally, as opposed to wantonly, recklessly or innocently. And upon what would this opinion be founded? Upon the detective’s opinion that other defendants in similar cases had acted intentionally.
Such testimony constitutes an egregious usurpation of the function of the jury. Rather than perpetuating the flawed holding in Kroth v. Commonwealth, Ky., 737 S.W.2d 680 (1987), we ought today to seize the opportunity to overrule it.
2. Well in advance of trial, on Donald Sargent’s discovery motion, the court ordered the Commonwealth to provide results of any scientific tests or experiments conducted in connection with the case. At trial, the prosecution was allowed, over objection, to enter the testimony of a crime lab chemist, and laboratory reports which had never been furnished to the defendant.
I cannot agree that the defendant waived objection to the Commonwealth’s flagrant violation of the court order, or waived his right to a fair trial. In announcing ready, the defense was perfectly justified in believing that the Commonwealth had complied with the express order of the court, and that there was no undisclosed scientific evidence.
3.During the Commonwealth’s direct examination of a police officer, there occurred the following:
Q. How is it that you knew Jerry Sargent? Did you know the man?
A. Yes, sir, I had known him. I had not had any previous contact with Jerry Sargent. However, he had been pointed out to me by other officers and detectives with the state police and so forth and through mug shots.
Evidence which in any manner shows or tends to show that a defendant has committed another offense independent of that for which he is on trial is inadmissible. Russell v. Commonwealth, Ky., 482 S.W.2d 584, 588 (1972). In this case, the testimony concerning the mug shots (and that concerning the other officers and detectives) was not introduced pursuant to any exception to the rule of exclusion. The witness’ prior knowledge of the defendant was irrelevant. The sole purpose of the quoted testimony was gratuitously to indicate to the jury that Jerry Sargent was a person with a criminal background. Considering the pattern of prejudice revealed by this record, I am not prepared to say that the court’s admonition to the jury was sufficient to cure the error.
Now that we have permitted the state to partially invade and usurp the jury’s function of determining guilt or innocence, where will we go next? Is the ancient mode of trial by jury in jeopardy? That *804was to be held sacred and inviolate by virtue of Section 7 of our constitution.
The trial of this case was marred by three clear and substantial errors. If not each independently, then certainly all in accumulation demonstrate that these defendants did not receive a fundamentally fair trial.
STEPHENS, C.J., and LEIBSON, J., join in this dissenting opinion.