Malone v. Commonwealth
2012 Ky. LEXIS 52
| Ky. | 2012Background
- Malone was convicted of murder in Jefferson County for the November 22, 2008 shooting of Montez Stewart.
- The jury recommended a 32-year prison sentence, which the trial court imposed.
- Malone argued on appeal that he was denied a complete defense, that the trial court erred on a directed verdict, that the jury instruction combining theories of murder was improper, and that he was denied presence during deliberation responses.
- Key witnesses Murphy and Hudson identified Malone as the shooter; Malone presented an alibi via Perry McDonald who claimed another individual was the shooter.
- The Commonwealth sought to exclude certain character evidence about Stewart and McDonald’s credibility, which the trial court partially limited.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed, finding no reversible error and reviewing the challenged evidentiary and instructional rulings for harmlessness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Malone was denied a complete defense | Malone argues ruling limited defense; sought(impeachment/evidence) on credibility. | Commonwealth contends rulings were proper and evidence lacked relevance to motive or bias. | No reversible error; limits were proper and defense not denied. |
| Whether the court properly denied a directed verdict | Evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt under one theory. | Testimony and identifications could rationally support a conviction. | Evidence could reasonably support conviction; no directed-verdict error. |
| Whether the jury instruction allowing both intentional and wanton murder violated unanimity | Combination instruction risks nonunanimity if one theory lacks support. | Both theories supported; combination instruction proper and not required to bifurcate. | Combination instruction proper; no unanimity violation. |
| Whether Malone was denied presence when the court addressed jury deliberation questions | RCr 9.74/8.28 require presence during responses or replay. | Counsel approved process; some responses were purely legal and harmless. | Any error was harmless; presence not required for purely legal questions and replay. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beaty v. Commonwealth, 125 S.W.3d 196 (Ky. 2003) (right to present complete defense and confront bias)
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (U.S. 2006) (right to present evidence of bias and alternative perpetrators)
- Davenport v. Commonwealth, 177 S.W.3d 763 (Ky. 2005) (limits on cross-examination to speculative theories)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1977) (pretrial identifications; reliability and jury weighing by itself)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- Robinson v. Commonwealth, 325 S.W.3d 368 (Ky. 2010) (unanimity and dual-theory theories in murder instructions)
- Hayes v. Commonwealth, 625 S.W.2d 583 (Ky. 1981) (unanimity concerns with alternative murder instructions)
- Hudson v. Commonwealth, 979 S.W.2d 106 (Ky. 1998) (intent inference and combination murder instructions)
- Barnett v. Commonwealth, 317 S.W.3d 49 (Ky. 2010) (replaying testimony within trial discretion)
- Watkins v. Commonwealth, 105 S.W.3d 449 (Ky. 2003) (RCr 9.74/8.28 practicality and presence considerations)
- Rogers v. United States, 422 U.S. 35 (U.S. 1975) (deliberating jury inquiries should be answered in open court)