Commonwealth v. Wright
2015 Ky. LEXIS 1744
| Ky. | 2015Background
- Floyd Wright was convicted by a jury of complicity to first-degree trafficking and as a second-degree persistent felony offender based largely on a controlled buy recorded by a confidential informant, Sherri Klups.
- Klups, working for Officer Aaron Arnsperger, wore an audio recorder during an August 6, 2008 buy at Sean Records’s house; she testified Wright was present, accompanied Records into the kitchen, and said “we stuck it in the freezer” about the cocaine.
- The audio recording was admitted into evidence and played in open court; during deliberations jurors requested to replay a portion and initially did so in court.
- Later the jury asked to hear the recording in the jury room; the court allowed it and provided the Commonwealth’s laptop (Windows Media Player) to the jurors. Defense objected generally to jury review outside open court but did not specifically ask for admonition or an in-camera review of the laptop.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding providing the prosecutor’s laptop with unfettered access was an abuse of discretion and highly prejudicial; the Commonwealth appealed to the Kentucky Supreme Court.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, finding no reversible or palpable error warranting a new trial on the laptop use or other challenged testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Wright's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury allowed to review recording in jury room using prosecutor’s laptop | Jury should only review recording in open court; laptop use risked exposure to prejudicial files/internet | Recording was an admitted exhibit and non-testimonial; device used need not be introduced; issue not preserved but encompassed | Court upheld trial court: jurors could review recording in jury room; use of Commonwealth’s laptop not reversible error absent proof of prejudice or internet use; equipment need not be admitted into evidence |
| Preservation of laptop-specific objection | Objected to listening in jury room (argues preserved for laptop issue) | Defendant didn’t specifically object to laptop; but general objection sufficed | Court found issue preserved because objecting to out-of-court review encompassed method of playback |
| Directed verdict motion denial | Evidence insufficient to prove Wright complicit | Sufficient circumstantial and direct evidence (Klups’s testimony, recording, officer ID) | Denial affirmed; reasonable juror could find complicity beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Testimony of Officer Arnsperger (interpretation/narration/vouching) | Officer impermissibly narrated/interpreted recording, vouched for informant, and speculated about Wright’s role | Testimony largely duplicated informant’s evidence and any improper opinion was not palpable error | Court: portions improper but admission did not constitute palpable error; bolstering of informant was improper character evidence but not manifestly unjust to require reversal |
| Klups’s testimony on Wright’s participation/state of mind | Her statements invaded jury province and opined on guilt/state of mind | Testimony was based on her perceptions and experience as informant; permissible lay inferences under KRE 701 | Admission not palpable error — her opinions were rationally based on personal observations and helpful to jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Springfield v. Commonwealth, 410 S.W.3d 589 (Ky. 2013) (distinguishes testimonial recordings from non-testimonial real-time recordings and permits jury deliberation review for non-testimonial recordings)
- Benham v. Commonwealth, 816 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1991) (standard for directed verdict — view evidence in Commonwealth’s favor)
- Schoenbachler v. Commonwealth, 95 S.W.3d 830 (Ky. 2003) (definition and standard for palpable error review)
- Boyd v. Commonwealth, 439 S.W.3d 126 (Ky. 2014) (limits on narration and interpretation of recordings by witnesses)
- Fairrow v. Commonwealth, 175 S.W.3d 601 (Ky. 2005) (inadmissible support for witness credibility; bolstering and its effect on reversal)
- Hunt v. Commonwealth, 304 S.W.3d 15 (Ky. 2009) (scope for lay witness opinion testimony under KRE 701)
- Nugent v. Commonwealth, 639 S.W.2d 761 (Ky. 1982) (improper lay opinion when not based on firsthand perception)
- Bussey v. Commonwealth, 797 S.W.2d 483 (Ky. 1990) (improper testimony commenting on credibility rather than facts)