Boyd v. Commonwealth
439 S.W.3d 126
Ky.2014Background
- Victim Dwight Faulkner was assaulted in his home after two men entered; Adrian Boyd and Dentarais Clayton were later arrested; Boyd tried with LaShauna Wells and convicted of first-degree burglary, fourth-degree assault, and first-degree persistent felony offender (PFO).
- Faulkner had motion-activated security cameras; Faulkner and a witness (Richardson) viewed and narrated the security footage at trial and identified defendants from it.
- During voir dire a prospective juror expressed support for hanging; the judge excused that juror and admonished the venire but declined to dismiss the entire venire.
- A police officer, on cross, mentioned he had previously arrested Boyd; the defense chose not to request an admonition.
- Evidence included testimony that Wells called Faulkner from a number later identified as Boyd’s; Boyd objected as speculative. The jury convicted and Boyd appealed raising evidentiary and PFO challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Boyd's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether juror outburst required dismissal of entire venire | Outburst was prejudicial; entire venire should be dismissed | Judge’s admonition cured any prejudice; dismissal not required | No abuse of discretion; admonition presumed effective absent actual prejudice |
| 2. Admissibility of witnesses narrating security video | Narration went beyond personal knowledge and included impermissible interpretation | Narration of what witnesses perceived is allowed; only interpretation/opinion is barred | Narration of events perceived in real time admissible; parts recounting events not personally perceived violated KRE 602/701 but error was harmless |
| 3. Witness identification from video | Identification was unreliable and impermissible | Lay witnesses may identify persons in surveillance if based on personal knowledge helpful to jury | Richardson’s ID permissible under KRE 602/701 given her familiarity with Boyd and Clayton |
| 4. Officer’s testimony mentioning prior arrest of Boyd | Mention of prior arrest was prejudicial and required reversal | Defendant waived review by declining an admonition; cure is admonition and defendant declined it | Not reviewed; defendant’s strategic withdrawal of admonition precludes relief |
| 5. Admission of testimony that Wells called from Boyd’s phone (speculation/hearsay) | Testimony was speculative and violated KRE 701; prejudiced the jury | Any initial speculative answer was clarified; defense waived later hearsay by not objecting; evidence of relationship was cumulative | Initial speculative statement could have been stricken but any error was harmless or waived given subsequent testimony and abundant evidence linking Boyd and Wells |
| 6. Whether Boyd qualifies as a first-degree PFO given concurrent sentences and shock probation | Prior terms served in county jail or concurrently should not count as separate imprisonments; at most second-degree PFO | Time served in county jail counts as imprisonment; a break in custody (shock probation then another felony) yields separate prior felonies | Convictions qualify for first-degree PFO: county jail counts as imprisonment; Hart/Barren concurrent sentences count as one, but Warren felony occurred after shock probation (a break), so counts separately |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgan v. Commonwealth, 421 S.W.3d 388 (Ky. 2014) (governs admissibility and limits of video narration and lay testimony)
- Cuzick v. Commonwealth, 276 S.W.3d 260 (Ky. 2009) (distinguishes narration from impermissible interpretation of video)
- Winstead v. Commonwealth, 283 S.W.3d 678 (Ky. 2009) (harmless-error standard for nonconstitutional evidentiary errors)
- Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941 (Ky. 1999) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Blades v. Commonwealth, 339 S.W.3d 450 (Ky. 2011) (concurrent sentence break principle for PFO analysis)
- Maxie v. Commonwealth, 82 S.W.3d 860 (Ky. 2002) (presumption that juries follow admonitions)
- Thompson v. Commonwealth, 862 S.W.2d 871 (Ky. 1993) (trial court discretion in dismissing venire)
- Lanham v. Commonwealth, 171 S.W.3d 14 (Ky. 2005) (failure to request admonition waives review of accidental prior-act testimony)
- Graves v. Commonwealth, 17 S.W.3d 858 (Ky. 2000) (admonition as cure for accidental admission of prior bad acts)
- Ernst v. Commonwealth, 160 S.W.3d 744 (Ky. 2005) (standard for palpable error review)