Anthony Sturgeon v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
2017 Ky. LEXIS 279
Ky.2017Background
- Anthony Ray Sturgeon shot and killed his brother Randal in their shared home; he called 911 and initially said the shooting was accidental, later admitting he confronted Randal with a loaded gun to scare him and touched the trigger.
- Sturgeon claimed extreme emotional disturbance (EED) as his primary defense; the jury convicted him of murder and the trial court sentenced him to 25 years.
- On appeal Sturgeon challenged (1) the trial court's denial of for-cause strikes of two jurors (Juror 500 and Juror 566), (2) the court's refusal to give a reckless homicide instruction as a lesser included offense, and (3) admission of several of the victim's pre-death text messages under the state-of-mind hearsay exception.
- The trial court denied strikes for cause (but the defense used a peremptory to remove Juror 500), refused the reckless homicide instruction, and admitted multiple text messages under KRE 803(3) with some later deemed irrelevant and admonished.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court reviewed these rulings for abuse of discretion (juror challenges and instructions) and admissibility under KRE 803(3) and KRE 401-403, and affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sturgeon) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by not striking Juror 500 for cause | Juror 500 equivocated about ability to apply EED and should have been excused under RCr 9.36(1) | Trial court properly exercised discretion; no reasonable ground shown to believe juror could not be impartial | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion in declining to strike Juror 500 |
| Whether trial court erred by not striking Juror 566 for cause | Juror 566's aversion to guns and prior acquaintance with prosecutor created reasonable ground for excusal | Juror stated she could be impartial; responses did not show bias against defendant | Affirmed — no reasonable ground to believe juror couldn't be fair |
| Whether court should have instructed on reckless homicide | Evidence supported reckless homicide because defendant may have failed to perceive risk of death | Commonwealth: defendant admitted he aimed a loaded gun and touched the trigger, showing he perceived the risk, not mere recklessness | Affirmed — insufficient evidence that defendant failed to perceive substantial risk, so no reckless homicide instruction warranted |
| Whether admission of victim's texts under KRE 803(3) was erroneous | Several texts were hearsay and irrelevant; their admission prejudiced Sturgeon | Commonwealth: texts admissible to show victim's contemporaneous fear and strained relationship (state of mind) | Mixed: Some texts properly admitted (showing fear/discord); others were irrelevant but their admission harmless; conviction upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Mabe v. Commonwealth, 884 S.W.2d 668 (Ky. 1994) (explains limits of "rehabilitating" jurors and articulated the phrasing later misused as a test for excusal)
- Ordway v. Commonwealth, 391 S.W.3d 762 (Ky. 2013) (discusses striking doubtful jurors and erring on side of caution)
- Wheeler v. Commonwealth, 121 S.W.3d 173 (Ky. 2003) (interpreted Mabe language as the "true test" for juror excusal)
- Sluss v. Commonwealth, 450 S.W.3d 279 (Ky. 2014) (trial court must weigh juror responses and demeanor; impartiality is a state of mind)
- Harris v. Commonwealth, 313 S.W.3d 40 (Ky. 2010) (trial court must instruct on lesser-included offenses or defenses if evidence permits)
- Dillon v. Commonwealth, 475 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2015) (KRE 803(3) limited to statements expressing then-existing state of mind; contemporaneity is critical)
- Moorman v. Commonwealth, 325 S.W.3d 325 (Ky. 2010) (relevance and KRE 401-403 balancing for state-of-mind evidence)
- Winstead v. Commonwealth, 283 S.W.3d 678 (Ky. 2009) (harmless-error standard for nonconstitutional evidentiary errors)