Hurt v. Commonwealth, 409 S.W.3d 327

On Oct. 2–3, 2010, Lester Hurt pursued and repeatedly rammed a Jeep after a campsite fight; the Jeep left the road and became stuck on an embankment.
Hurt exited his truck, attacked occupants of the Jeep, returned to his truck and pushed the Jeep further down the embankment; Julius "Ed" Williams was crushed to death beneath Hurt’s truck.
Hurt admitted he may have struck Williams; witnesses and forensic evidence supported aggressive ramming and erratic driving; Hurt had been drinking earlier.
Hurt was convicted of wanton murder, three counts of first-degree wanton endangerment, criminal mischief, and fourth-degree assault; life sentence for murder; other sentences concurrent.
On appeal Hurt raised (1) trial court’s refusal to excuse a juror for cause (forcing use of a peremptory) and (2) denial of motions for directed verdict on wanton murder and wanton endangerment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Trial court refused to excuse Juror 149 for cause, forcing defense to use a peremptory on Juror 149 instead of Juror 241	Trial: juror’s family history with substance abuse showed inability to be impartial; appellate: court’s failure forced use of a peremptory against a different juror, preserving reversible error under Shane	Court: Hurt failed to preserve the claim under Gabbard because he did not identify on his pre-empanelment strike sheet the juror he would have struck (Juror 241)	Affirmed. Issue unpreserved; Gabbard requires identifying additional jurors on the strike sheet before empanelment; no palpable-error review granted
Denial of directed verdicts on wanton murder and first-degree wanton endangerment	Hurt: conduct (ramming/slowly pushing Jeep) did not meet aggravated wantonness or create substantial risk of death/serious injury necessary for wanton murder/endangerment	Commonwealth: totality of circumstances — pursuit, repeated ramming, pushing Jeep off embankment, passenger injury, and victim being pinned under tires — demonstrated wanton mental state and circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life	Affirmed. Viewing evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth, a reasonable juror could find wanton murder and three counts of first-degree wanton endangerment beyond a reasonable doubt

Shane v. Commonwealth, 243 S.W.3d 336 (Ky. 2007) (failure to excuse a juror for cause that forces use of a peremptory can be reversible error)
Gabbard v. Commonwealth, 297 S.W.3d 844 (Ky. 2009) (defendant must identify on strike sheet additional jurors he would have struck to preserve a Shane claim)
Grubb v. Norton Hospitals, Inc., 401 S.W.3d 483 (Ky. 2013) (application of Gabbard preservation rule)
Benham v. Commonwealth, 816 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1991) (directed verdict standard — draw all reasonable inferences for Commonwealth)
Sawhill v. Commonwealth, 660 S.W.2d 3 (Ky. 1983) (directed verdict only when reasonable juror could not find guilt)
Brown v. Commonwealth, 174 S.W.3d 421 (Ky. 2005) (wanton murder requires aggravated wantonness; examples and analysis of extreme indifference)
Sluss v. Commonwealth, 381 S.W.3d 215 (Ky. 2012) (no fixed checklist for wanton murder; totality of circumstances governs)
Ramsey v. Commonwealth, 157 S.W.3d 194 (Ky. 2005) (standards for reckless/wanton vehicle operation producing grave risk)