Johnson v. Commonwealth
405 S.W.3d 439
| Ky. | 2013Background
- Johnson was convicted in Laurel Circuit Court (May 2011) of murder and first-degree criminal abuse of her two-year-old son Stephen Troy.
- On appeal, Johnson challenges only the abuse conviction; murder conviction is affirmed.
- Evidence showed multiple leg fractures and other injuries; abuse theory tied to caregiver role and opportunity.
- Trial included witnesses of past abuse and Johnson’s lies about medical treatment.
- Court reverses the abuse conviction due to a due-process/unanimity flaw in the jury instruction that did not specify which act constituted the offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unanimity defect in the first-degree criminal abuse verdict | Johnson argues the instruction allowed a nonunanimous finding | Commonwealth argues instruction was sufficient; no reversible error | Unanimity violation present; reversal of abuse conviction |
| Directed verdict on first-degree criminal abuse | Insufficient evidence of abuse within the time frame | Evidence circumstantially supports abuse; jury could find guilt | No directed-verdict error; evidence viewed in total supports jury verdict |
| Palpable error in unanimity and due process | Unanimity issue warrants reversal under palpable-error standard | Unanimity issue not adequately preserved; no palpable error | Palpable error found; reversal of abuse conviction for due process/unanimity |
| Admissibility of audiotaped interrogations and Detective Allen’s commentary | Tapes improperly inflamed jury’s perception of credibility | Lanham permits contextual police comments; admonitions available on request | Admissible; no palpable error affecting murder conviction; tapes properly contextualized |
| Detective Allen’s testimony bolstering Will Callahan’s testimony | Testimony improperly bolstered a witness’s credibility | Not improper vouching; detective only contrasted stories | Not reversible error; did not affect murder conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Benham v. Commonwealth, 816 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1991) (directed-verdict standards; appellate deference to jury findings)
- Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1991) (no requirement to prove two mental states as separate crimes; issues of specificity vs. duplicity)
- Harp v. Commonwealth, 266 S.W.3d 813 (Ky. 2008) (unanimity issue in multiple counts; distinguishable from single-count cases)
- Bell v. Commonwealth, 245 S.W.3d 738 (Ky. 2008) (unanimity considerations when multiple acts prove a single offense)
- Leinenbach v. Commonwealth, 351 S.W.3d 645 (Ky. 2011) (instructions must clarify which act supports a verdict when multiple acts occur)
- Lanham v. Commonwealth, 171 S.W.3d 14 (Ky. 2005) (admonitions to contextualize police-elicited statements during interrogations)
- U.S. v. Holley, 942 F.2d 916 (5th Cir. 1991) (duplicitous counts; need for unanimity on specific acts in single-count charges)
- Starks v. United States, 515 F.2d 112 (3d Cir. 1975) (duality of multiple offenses within one count; general verdict issues)