Harris v. Commonwealth
2012 Ky. LEXIS 139
| Ky. | 2012Background
- Harris was convicted of murder by a Kenton Circuit Court after a three-trial sequence ending in a 2010 verdict recommending 40 years' imprisonment.
- The Commonwealth introduced two .380 guns owned by Harris, neither of which was the murder weapon, arguing relevance to habit or familiarity with the weapon.
- Harris challenged admission of the guns and also challenged hearing testimony that the victim asked to borrow $800 from his wife shortly before the murder.
- The trial court admitted hearsay about the victim’s state of mind regarding debt, which Harris contends was not admissible under KRE 803(3).
- The jury heard testimony from multiple witnesses (Bishop, Cornett, Lowe, and Asad’s wife) and reviewed Shell station surveillance; Harris testified in his defense.
- At trial, Harris had been tried twice before for the same offense, with the prior juries deadlocking; the third jury convicted Harris and sentenced him to 40 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Harris’s guns | Harris: guns were irrelevant and prejudicial | Commonwealth: guns show weapon familiarity | Harmless error; no reversible impact on verdict |
| Hearsay about borrowing money | Asad’s request to borrow money is hearsay | State of mind exception could apply | Harmless error; state-of-mind relevance lacking; no reversal |
| Admissibility of prior deadlocked juries information | Prior trials and deadlocks show pattern of prosecution | Such information is irrelevant and confusing | Proper exclusion; not probative of guilt |
Key Cases Cited
- Major v. Commonwealth, 177 S.W.3d 700 (Ky. 2005) (weapons not used in crime inadmissible absent nexus)
- Sweatt v. Commonwealth, 550 S.W.2d 520 (Ky. 1977) (weapons with possible connection may be admitted)
- Barth v. Commonwealth, 80 S.W.3d 390 (Ky. 2001) (identification nexus to admit evidence)
- Grundy v. Commonwealth, 25 S.W.3d 76 (Ky. 2000) (concrete evidence admissibility when connected to crime)
- Riser, 47 Cal.2d 566 (Cal. 1956) (inadmissibility of weapons not conclusively linked to crime)
- Green v. State, 27 So.3d 731 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010) (multiple .380 guns but none linked to crime; inadmissible)
- Bray v. Commonwealth, 68 S.W.3d 375 (Ky. 2002) (state-of-mind statements relevant only in self-defense/intent contexts)
- Ernst v. Commonwealth, 160 S.W.3d 744 (Ky. 2005) (victim-state-of-mind statements admissible only when issue; here not)
- Partin v. Commonwealth, 918 S.W.2d 219 (Ky. 1996) (state-of-mind evidence generally limited; danger of prejudice)
- Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (U.S. 2009) (hung juries treated as non-events; limited probative value)