McAtee v. Commonwealth, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 400

A Jefferson Circuit Court jury convicted McAtee of murder and tampering with physical evidence; he was sentenced to 25 years for murder and additional term for tampering to be served concurrently.
Beals and Kilgore witnessed events surrounding Rodney Haskins’s murder and identified McAtee as the shooter in initial accounts; both later claimed memory loss at trial.
The Commonwealth impeached Beals and Kilgore with prior statements to Detective Trees and introduced Kilgore’s videotaped interview and Beals’s investigative notes.
During deliberations, the jury reviewed Kilgore’s videotaped statement in the deliberation room after the court permitted it.
McAtee challenged the tampering conviction as insufficient evidence, sought directed verdict, and challenged several evidentiary and procedural rulings.
The Court reversed McAtee’s tampering conviction and vacated its sentence, but affirmed the murder conviction and sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Tampering conviction—sufficiency of evidence	McAtee argues insufficient evidence supports tampering.	Commonwealth contends inferences support guilt under KRS 524.100(l)(a).	Directed verdict reversed; insufficient evidence to convict tampering.
Admission of out-of-court statements	Beals and Kilgore statements violate Confrontation Clause when testimonial.	Statements admissible as prior inconsistent statements and possibly as substantive evidence under Jett.	No Confrontation Clause error; proper under Crawford Owens and Jett.
Deliberation-room review of Kilgore video	RCr 9.72/9.74 violated by allowing jury to view in private; 8.28 rights violated.	No error or harmless error; discretion to permit review.	RCr 9.72 error deemed harmless; RCr 9.74 private viewing harmless overall; 8.28 harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Rule of completeness and defense presentation	Entire taped statement should be played under KRE 106 to present full defense.	Schrimsher prevents full statement; defense cross-examination adequate.	Trial court properly denied full statement; discretion to limit under Schrimsher.
Prosecutor's closing argument	Prosecutor misled by suggesting defense could reveal more of the statement; violated fairness.	Argument permissible as reasonable inferences; defense had opportunity to cross-examine and elicit parts.	No prosecutorial misconduct; fair trial.

Mullins v. Commonwealth, 350 S.W.3d 434 (Ky. 2011) (fleeing with weapon not automatically tampering; requires concealment evidence)
Jett v. Commonwealth, 436 S.W.2d 788 (Ky. 1969) (prior inconsistent statements may be substantive evidence)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause and testimonial statements)
Owens v. United States, 484 U.S. 554 (U.S. 1988) (cross-examination rights limited to opportunity, not perfection)
Mills v. Commonwealth, 44 S.W.3d 366 (Ky. 2001) (harmful impact of private review of taped statements)
Berner v. Bizer, 57 S.W.3d 271 (Ky. 2001) (limitations on use of witness interview summaries to jury room)
Williams v. Commonwealth, 147 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2004) (harmless error considerations in sentential jury deliberations)