Haley v. Commonwealth9/22/2005
ied that, on November 10, 2002, Mr. Dozier answered the telephone at 3:00 - 3:30 a.m. and Ms. Dozier heard a person she believed to be Bruce Haley say, "Do you hear me? 4:00. Pow, pow, pow, pow."
The admissibility of evidence of uncharged crimes is governed by KRE 404(b), which provides:
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible:
(1) If offered for some other purpose, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident; or
(2) Is so inextricably intertwined with other evidence essential to the case that separation of the two could not be accomplished without serious adverse effect on the offering party.
In Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999) (citing Rake v. Commonwealth, 450 S.W.2d 527, 528 (Ky. 1970)), we stated that in considering KRE 404(b) evidence, the question of whether the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect is a task properly reserved to the sound discretion of the trial court. We further held that the standard of review of a trial court's decisions under KRE 403 is whether the trial court abused its discretion. An abuse of discretion has been defined as a decision that was made arbitrarily, unreasonably, unfairly, or which was legally unsound. Id.; see also Daniel v. Commonwealth, 905 S.W.2d 76, 78 (Ky. 1995); Bell v. Commonwealth, 875 S.W.2d 882, 890-891 (Ky. 1994).
In Commonwealth v. Morrison, 661 S.W.2d 471 (Ky. 1983), we stated, "when dealing with evidence of a litigant's prior misconduct, when such evidence is debatably or remotely relevant, the trial court must decide whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs its inflammatory nature. If it does, the evidence is admissible. Otherwise, it is not."
Review of the facts of this case indicates that the trial court's decision to allow this evidence was legally sound. In full context, it established the reason Dozier and Gray were sitting on the railroad tracks above Dozier's home, which resulted in Dozier's murder. In fact, the prior shooting directly related to a course of conduct of the victim and Haley, thus satisfying both of the criteria set forth in KRE 404(b). Therefore, the trial court's decision was not "made arbitrarily, unreasonably, unfairly." English, su ra, 993 S.W.2d at 945. Accordingly, we do not find an abuse of discretion.
APPELLANT'S PRIOR STATEMENT
Lastly, Appellant argues the trial court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to play a recording of Haley's second statement to the police.
This statement was played at the close of the Commonwealth's case by recalling the lead detective in this investigation, Detective Williams. The statement was introduced because it was not consistent with the first statement Haley gave to Detective Williams. In the first statement, Haley indicated no knowledge of the crime, or any knowledge about who may have committed the murder. He also denied having any problems with Dozier. He stated that he was drunk in his truck all night, he had partied alone, and that Dozier must have messed with someone. In the second statement, Haley implied he knew who committed the murder, someone around 25 and someone around 41 and that the crime had been committed with a.22 and.30/.30 weapon.
At trial, he admitted Dozier had obtained an Emergency Protective Order (EPO) against him, varied his previous statement to include a.44 caliber weapon as a possible murder weapon, and stated he probably had a good reason for not telling Detective
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|