Hammond v. Commonwealth
2012 Ky. LEXIS 63
| Ky. | 2012Background
- Hammond was convicted by Jefferson Circuit Court of three murders, first-degree burglary, first-degree unlawful imprisonment, and retaliating against a participant in the legal process; death penalty pursued but he received life without parole for murders and 30 years for other offenses.
- Indictments: Sawyers and Cherry murders and related burglary charges; Williams murder charged separately in a different indictment; initial separations and dismissals occurred before consolidation.
- A later re-indictment merged all charges into two indictments and a joint trial occurred after consolidation over Hammond’s objection.
- The trial court consolidated the Williams murder with the Sawyers-Cherry murders and related crimes for a single trial.
- The Commonwealth sought to admit Sheckles’s out-of-court statements under forfeiture by wrongdoing due to her murder before trial; the court admitted the statements.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed Hammond’s convictions, holding improper joinder prejudicial and the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing ruling unsupported by substantial evidence, remanding for new trials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was joinder of the Williams murder with Sawyers-Cherry and related crimes improper? | Hammond contends joinder was not proper under RCr 6.18/9.12. | Commonwealth asserts same/similar character or common scheme; argues joinder proper. | Yes; improper joinder and prejudicial, warranting new, separate trials. |
| Did the improper joinder prejudice Hammond? | Consolidation impaired defense by tainting with unrelated crimes evidence. | Evidence proximity and capital context justify joinder. | Prejudice established; reversal and remand for new trials. |
| Was Sheckles’s out-of-court statement admitted under forfeiture by wrongdoing supported by substantial evidence? | Admission based on unauthenticated, hearsay documents; Parker requires an evidentiary hearing with live proof. | Documents could establish forfeiture and permit admission; no live hearing required. | No; findings not supported by substantial evidence; admission reversed; related convictions reversed. |
| Was the Parker evidentiary procedure and authentication properly applied for forfeiture by wrongdoing? | Parker requires a hearing and authentication of evidence; burden on Commonwealth. | Procedural flexibility allowed; documents sufficient to show misconduct. | Procedural failure; retrial required with proper Parker hearing. |
| Did admission of Ericka Ford's prior inconsistent statements unduly influence the jury? | Prior inconsistent statements can be substantive; Ford’s recollection issues could mislead jury. | Remaining admissible portions do not substantially sway verdict. | Admission did not substantially influence the verdict; retrial may revisit if Ford repeats recollection issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rearick v. Commonwealth, 858 S.W.2d 185 (Ky. 1993) (prejudice from joined offenses requires more than mere similarity)
- Spencer v. Commonwealth, 554 S.W.2d 355 (Ky. 1977) (evidence admissibility relevance in determining joinder prejudice)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 458 S.W.2d 444 (Ky. 1970) (broad discretion on joinder rulings; abuse if prejudicial)
- Parker v. Commonwealth, 291 S.W.3d 647 (Ky. 2009) (claims of forfeiture by wrongdoing require evidentiary showing by proponent)
- Jett v. Commonwealth, 436 S.W.2d 788 (Ky. 1969) (prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence under KRE 801A(a)(1))
- Young v. Commonwealth, 50 S.W.3d 148 (Ky. 2001) (standard of review for preliminary factual determinations; substantial evidence required)
- Rodgers v. Commonwealth, 285 S.W.3d 740 (Ky. 2009) (evidentiary hearings and admissibility considerations in special contexts)