Jarrod Weiss v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 2016 SC 000183

Background

Victim Tanner Browning was found dead from a gunshot in his apartment; Appellant Jarrod Weiss was the last person seen with Tanner the evening of the killing.
Appellant had purchased a stolen .45 Glock (via an intermediary) that the Commonwealth contended could be the murder weapon; the stolen Glock itself was never recovered.
Several witnesses (including Appellant’s wife Lavonna and her relatives) testified that Appellant confessed to killing Tanner after a dispute over a drug debt; other corroborating facts included a clogged toilet from cut-up pants and Appellant’s attempt to dispose of a gun.
Ballistics testing linked the type of hollow-point bullet recovered at the scene to ammunition the stolen Glock had been loaded with, but test-fired casings from the Glock did not match the scene casing.
At trial the Commonwealth introduced (1) lay witness Davis’s testimony about ammunition rarity and the stolen Glock; (2) Detective Napier’s recounting of an off-the-record statement by outside ballistics expert Kelly Fite; and (3) Detective Ball’s summary of his investigative interviews and reading of an unredacted interview transcript.
Weiss was convicted of murder and tampering with physical evidence; he appealed raising evidentiary, confrontation, privilege, discovery, and prosecutorial-misconduct claims.

Issues

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Weiss's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Davis’s testimony about rarity/availability of ammunition (KRE 701)	Davis’s statements were lay opinions based on long personal experience buying/using ammunition, thus admissible.	Testimony improperly presented expert opinion and was unduly prejudicial (KRE 403).	Admissible as lay testimony under KRE 701; not unduly prejudicial under KRE 403.
Detective Napier recounting Fite’s off-the-record statement about Glock test casings (hearsay & Confrontation Clause)	Statement was brief, added little, and jury could infer manufacturer mismatch without it; error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.	Testimony was hearsay and violated confrontation rights; not harmless given weak physical evidence.	Testimony was hearsay and violated confrontation clause, but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Detective Ball summarizing interviews and saying Weiss was the only suspect (hearsay & Confrontation)	Ball’s statements explained investigative process and were permissible lay testimony; many interviewees testified at trial so confrontation not violated.	Summaries were inadmissible hearsay and violated confrontation rights.	Statements were inadmissible hearsay but harmless because the declarants testified and were cross-examined; confrontation claim fails.
Detective Hunt transcript references to “a God thing” read to jury	Remarks merely explained investigator’s surprise at certain discoveries and did not impermissibly bolster or inject religion.	References bolstered detective credibility and were prejudicial.	Not reversible error; references not prejudicial in context.
Admission of prior-bad-act references (KRE 404(b)) — Luvisi and Lavonna testimony	Testimony did not introduce proof of separate crimes; Lavonna’s disclosure arose on cross and was minor relative to charges.	Testimony introduced impermissible character/bad-act evidence requiring mistrial.	No reversible error; not a manifest injustice and a mistrial was unnecessary.
Late disclosure of witness Leseman’s inculpatory statements (RCr 7.26)	Commonwealth informed defense as soon as it learned of new testimony and gave continuance; RCr 7.26 written-statement rule did not apply to unrecorded extra details.	Late notice prejudiced defense and violated RCr 7.26 rights.	No RCr 7.26 violation; even assuming one, Weiss was not prejudiced.
Marital privilege — Lavonna’s testimony against Weiss (KRE 504)	Exception applies where spouses acted jointly or conspired in the charged crime; Lavonna and Weiss were jointly indicted for tampering with evidence.	Marital privilege barred compelled spousal testimony.	KRE 504(c)(1) exception applies; testimony admissible.

Key Cases Cited

Mondie v. Commonwealth, 158 S.W.3d 203 (Ky. 2005) (lay opinion admissibility depends on witness life experience).
Hunt v. Commonwealth, 304 S.W.3d 15 (Ky. 2009) (support for lay-witness opinion limits).
Ten Broeck Dupont, Inc. v. Brooks, 283 S.W.3d 705 (Ky. 2009) (definition of unfair prejudice under balancing rule).
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial out-of-court statements barred absent prior opportunity for cross-examination).
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (standard for harmlessness of constitutional error beyond a reasonable doubt).
Staples v. Commonwealth, 454 S.W.3d 803 (Ky. 2014) (harmless-error analysis for Confrontation Clause violations).
Dickerson v. Commonwealth, 485 S.W.3d 310 (Ky. 2016) (summary of hearsay statements by a detective remains hearsay; confrontation may be satisfied where declarants testify).
Sanborn v. Commonwealth, 754 S.W.2d 534 (Ky. 1988) (officer summaries of witness interviews can be hearsay).
Brown v. Commonwealth, 983 S.W.2d 513 (Ky. 1999) (improper bolstering via religious symbolism can be prejudicial).