 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Boyd v. Commonwealth8/25/2005
THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. " PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28 (4) (c), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE CITED OR USED AS AUTHORITY IN ANY OTHER CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE.
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
AFFIRMING
Appellant, Jeffrey Lee Boyd, was convicted of trafficking in a controlled substance in the first-degree and received the statutory maximum ten-year sentence for that charge. After finding Boyd guilty of being a first-degree persistent felony offender, the jury enhanced his punishment to twenty years' imprisonment. He appeals to this Court as a matter of right. Ky. Const § 110 (2)(b). Boyd assigns two errors to the trial court proceedings: (1) improper denial of his motion for recusal, and (2) substantial prejudice arising from his appearance before the jury in shackles. Finding no merit to either of Boyd's arguments, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Facts
In September 2003, a grand jury indicted Boyd for first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance for selling two Oxycontin pills to a police informant. The grand jury also indicted Boyd with being a first-degree persistent felony offender (PFO) for having prior convictions for rape, theft by unlawful taking, and sexual abuse. Trial of this case began in December 2003, but ended abruptly after jury selection. A mistrial was declared after Boyd arose from his chair, overturned his defense table, and disobeyed court orders to sit down. Boyd's disruptive conduct concluded after he was shot with a taser gun by courtroom officers.
A second trial was held in March 2004. Prior to this trial, Boyd moved for the trial judge's recusal because the judge had served previously as Commonwealth's Attorney and had prosecuted Boyd in a prior, unrelated trial. Boyd argued that under these circumstances, the judge could not assure him of receiving a fair and impartial trial. The judge denied Boyd's motion for recusal.
Also, prior to the beginning of Boyd's trial, the judge held a hearing to consider whether shackling Boyd would be necessary in light of his previous outburst in the courtroom. The judge heard testimony from two jailers that Boyd had made comments that he planned to disrupt the second trial in a violent way if he did not like its outcome. After a thorough hearing on the matter, the judge decided that the possibility of danger outweighed any potential prejudice to Boyd. Accordingly, the judge ordered Boyd to be shackled at all times while in the courtroom.
Because of Boyd's large size, the use of leg shackles, which would have been less visible to the jury, was not possible. Instead, Boyd was placed in handcuffs. To reduce the possibility of prejudice to Boyd, the judge ensured that Boyd's shackles were not easily visible to the jury and allowed Boyd to testify from defense counsel's table. He also offered to admonish the jury not to consider the shackles as an indication of guilt, but this was rejected by Boyd's defense counsel, who did not want to draw attention to the situation.
Motion to Recuse
Boyd claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion to recuse because the trial judge could not have been impartial as required by KRS 26A.015. The statute, in pertinent part, specifically states that:
(2) Any justice or judge of the Court of Justice. .. shall disqualify himself in any proceeding
(a) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. ..
(b) Where in private practice or government service he served as a lawyer or rendered a legal opin
Page 1 2 3 4 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|