Keith Jerome Stovall v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

IMPORTANT NOTICE
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION
THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED."
PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C),
THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE
CITED OR.USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER
CASE IN ANY.COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER,
UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS,
RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR
CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED
OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE
BEFORE THE COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION
BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED
DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE
ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE
DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE
ACTION.
RENDERED: AUGUST 24, 2017
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
~upr:em:e 929
S.W.2d 734, 738 (Ky. 1996). "[A] finding of manifest necessity is a matter left.
to the sound discretion of the trial court." Commonwealth v. Scott, 12 S.W.3d
682, 684 (Ky. 2000).
As previously noted, Appellant's trial counsel objected to the
Commonwealth's questioning before the Detective ·responded with any level of
detail concerning his attempts to contact Appellant. The testimony of the
victims in this case was clear and compelling. Therefore, whatever alleged
constitutional error that may have occurred here was harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt. Chapman v.·Califomia, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967).
Appellant also claims that an admonition following Detective Wi:lliams'
testimony would have been insufficient to cure any alleged error because of
previous statements by jurors during voir dire questioning. More specifically,
Appellant's counsel asked the then prospective jurors whether any of them
would try to explain themselves if they were accused of wrongdoing. Juror
#1637116, who sat on the jury, indicated that he believed every situation
would be different and that he understood that it might be against an accused
3
person's best interests to explain himself, even if he were innocent. Appellant
did not attempt to strike that juror from the panel.
We are mystified by the point attempted to be made by Appellant, and
only address it because he raised it in his brief. We see no problem with the
juror's answer, nor why it was error to keep him on the jury. Neither do we see
how this matter makes the failure of the trial court to give an admonition less
important. Any attempt by the Appellant to link this voir dire matter with a
mistrial issue fails.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's argument that an admonition
following.Detective Williams' testimony would have been insufficient to cure the
alleged error arising from his testimony. See Johnson v. Commonwealth, 105
S.W.3d 430,441 (Ky. 2003). To the extent this line of questioning could be
deemed in error, an admonition would.have been a sufficient cure. See Vincent
v. Commonwealth, 281 S.W.3d 785, 789-90 (Ky. 2009) (denying mistrial motion
and concluding that an admonition would have cured impermissible testimony
that violated defendant's right to remain silent). Nothing that occurred during
voir dire changes this conclusion. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse. its
discretion in denying Appellant's mistrial motion.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we hereby affirm the judgment of the Jefferson
Circuit Court.
All sitting. All concur.
4
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Daniel T. Goyette
Louisville Metro Public Defender of Counsel
Cicely Jaracz Lambert
Deputy Appellate Defender
Allison Rief
Assistant Public Defender
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
Andy Beshear
Attorney General of Kentucky
Micah Brandon Roberts
Assistant Attorney General
5