Martin v. Commonwealth
2013 Ky. LEXIS 398
| Ky. | 2013Background
- Martin was convicted by a jury of first-degree trafficking (≥4 grams cocaine) and as a first-degree persistent felony offender; sentenced to 20 years (maximum).
- Facts: drugs found in a pill bottle with Martin’s name after he removed items from his pockets during a traffic stop; Martin admitted the cocaine was his and that he sold drugs.
- At trial Martin did not request an "innocent possession" instruction and did not object to the trafficking instruction’s phrasing; these instructional complaints were raised on appeal as unpreserved errors.
- During the penalty phase the clerk read prior convictions; final-judgment exhibits contained references to originally charged offenses that were dismissed or amended.
- Martin also challenged prosecutorial remarks in penalty-phase closing arguing the prosecutor invited punishment for others in the drug supply chain.
- The Court affirmed, addressing the interplay of RCr 9.54(2) (instruction-preservation rule) and palpable-error review under RCr 10.26, and rejecting Martin’s claims on the merits or as barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Martin) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to give Adkins "innocent possession" instruction | Martin: trial court should have given Adkins instruction; omission prejudiced him | Commonwealth: Martin never requested the instruction; RCr 9.54(2) bars appellate review of unrequested instructions | Court: RCr 9.54(2) bars review of unpreserved claims about giving/failing to give a specific instruction; decline review of Adkins claim |
| Trafficking instruction omitted phrase "knowingly and unlawfully" | Martin: instruction did not recite statutory language, so was defective | Commonwealth: instruction’s elements (knowledge substance is cocaine; intent to sell) are functionally equivalent; defendant himself tendered similar wording | Court: instruction was correct in substance; no palpable error; alternatively invited error by defendant |
| Admissibility of prior dismissed/amended charges in penalty phase | Martin: exhibits referenced dismissed/amended charges, violating KRS 532.055 and prejudicing sentence | Commonwealth: clerk testified only to convictions; any reference was in judgment exhibits; no evidence jury relied on dismissed/amended charges | Court: admission of judgments with underlying references was not shown to be relied on and was not palpable error given Martin’s multiple prior convictions; no manifest injustice |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in penalty closing | Martin: prosecutor urged jurors to punish Martin for wider drug problem — improper | Commonwealth: closing was not prejudicial in context of strong evidence and record | Court: statements improper but not palpable error given overwhelming evidence and prior record; no new penalty phase |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Adkins, 331 S.W.3d 260 (Ky. 2011) (approves "innocent possession" instruction when supported by evidence)
- Hartsock v. Commonwealth, 382 S.W.2d 861 (Ky. 1964) (interpreting preservation requirement for instructional error)
- Bartley v. Commonwealth, 400 S.W.3d 714 (Ky. 2013) (failure to request lesser-offense instruction may be strategic and is not error per se)
- Blane v. Commonwealth, 364 S.W.3d 140 (Ky. 2012) (introducing original dismissed/amended charges at penalty phase and emphasizing them can be palpable error)
- Chavies v. Commonwealth, 354 S.W.3d 103 (Ky. 2011) (original charges in penalty phase inadmissible; context matters for prejudice analysis)
- Quisenberry v. Commonwealth, 336 S.W.3d 19 (Ky. 2011) (invited-error doctrine: a party cannot complain on appeal of an error it invited)