Little v. Commonwealth, 422 S.W.3d 238

Background

In 2004 Shelby Little’s truck crossed the center line and collided with another vehicle; occupants (including a child) were injured and blood testing showed a .29% BAC. Little was indicted on multiple counts including first-degree assault, first-degree wanton endangerment, DUI, driving without a license, and PFO–1.
Little’s 2007 convictions were reversed on appeal for instructional error and erroneous introduction of prior DUI convictions; a second trial was held in 2011. The jury convicted on most counts and the trial court imposed a 70-year sentence under KRS 532.110(1)(e).
During voir dire two prospective jurors were challenged for cause: Juror Wright (three family members killed by drunk drivers years earlier) and Juror Thompson (first-responder with strong views about DUI law). The trial court denied strikes for cause; Little used peremptory strikes and removed them.
The Commonwealth admitted a University of Louisville hospital clinical laboratory report (blood analysis) without calling its author; Little objected on hearsay/confrontation grounds. The trial court admitted the report; the Commonwealth also offered a KSP toxicology report with the author testifying.
The indictment’s wanton endangerment count alleged endangered victims “Deloris Ray and/or Albert Logsdon.” At the first trial the jury was instructed only as to Ray (not Logsdon) and convicted as to Ray; on retrial the instruction combined Ray and Logsdon and the jury convicted. The Court addressed double jeopardy and unanimity concerns.

Issues

Issue	Little's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Trial court abused discretion by refusing to strike jurors Wright and Thompson for cause	Jurors’ life experiences (Wright’s family killed by drunk drivers; Thompson’s first-responder role) made impartiality impossible	Jurors’ voir dire answers were unequivocal that they could be fair; judge properly assessed demeanor and totality	No abuse of discretion; trial court rightly denied strikes for cause and Little was not deprived of peremptory strikes
Admission of hospital laboratory report without author testifying violated Confrontation Clause	Report is testimonial evidence; admission without author violated Sixth Amendment	Hospital lab report was created for treatment (non-testimonial) and properly admitted as a certified business/medical record under KRE 803(6)	Admission did not implicate Confrontation Clause; report was non-testimonial medical record and admissible as certified business record
Prosecution of wanton endangerment as to Logsdon violated Double Jeopardy	First jury was only instructed as to Ray; Commonwealth effectively abandoned Logsdon theory and cannot later prosecute on it	Retrial allowed because the original reversal was trial error; Commonwealth may retry offenses not previously resolved in favor of defendant	Conviction as to Logsdon reversed: prosecution’s failure to seek instruction as to Logsdon bars retrial on double jeopardy principles
Wanton endangerment instruction combining Ray and Logsdon violated unanimity	Instruction allowed jury to convict on multiple separate acts without unanimous agreement	Instruction was permissible	Instruction was duplicitous; unanimous-verdict right violated—wanton endangerment conviction reversed (Ray-related charge may be retried)

Key Cases Cited

Shane v. Commonwealth, 243 S.W.3d 336 (Ky. 2007) (trial-court discretion on juror challenges for cause; erroneous refusal that consumes peremptory requires reversal)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial out-of-court statements absent prior cross-examination)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic affidavits prepared for use at trial are testimonial; medical-treatment records may be non-testimonial)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (U.S. 2011) (distinguishes testimonial forensic reports from records created for treatment; primary-purpose test for testimonial nature)
Saylor v. Cornelius, 845 F.2d 1401 (6th Cir. 1988) (prosecution cannot withhold a theory of liability at trial and later prosecute that theory after jeopardy has terminated)
Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1978) (reversal for insufficient evidence bars retrial; reversal for trial error does not)
Matthews v. Commonwealth, 163 S.W.3d 11 (Ky. 2005) (medical records generally admissible under business-records hearsay exception)
Kingrey v. Commonwealth, 396 S.W.3d 824 (Ky. 2013) (duplicitous instructions violate unanimous-verdict right)