Michael Andrew Hardy v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
2016 SC 000602
Ky.Dec 12, 2017Background
- On Nov. 21, 2014, Michael Andrew Hardy drank heavily, drove a Jeep at high speed, and after several dangerous maneuvers rear-ended Arthur "Jeremy" Pryor, who died.
- Hardy admitted drinking and taking Seroquel; his blood alcohol content was .190. He could not recall the collision; EDR data showed 90 mph in a 30-mph zone and no pre-impact braking.
- Hardy was indicted on wanton murder, three counts of first-degree wanton endangerment, first-degree criminal mischief, and DWI; a jury convicted him and he received a 20-year sentence.
- At trial the court excluded the victim’s postmortem toxicology report (showing benzodiazepines and cannabinoids) as irrelevant and potentially prejudicial because no evidence showed the victim’s impairment contributed to the crash.
- The court admitted a portion of Hardy’s recorded post-collision statement (“So what’s that mean for me?”) on cross-examination as probative rebuttal to his trial expressions of remorse; Hardy’s Rule 106 argument was not preserved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of victim’s toxicology report | Hardy: report could show victim was impaired and causally contributed to crash | Commonwealth: no evidence victim’s impairment affected driving; report irrelevant and prejudicial | Court: exclusion proper—Hardy failed to show relevance under KRE 401/403; autopsy physician said levels did not show impairment |
| Selective prosecution / plea offer | Hardy: Commonwealth selectively refused to offer plea deals to him relative to similarly situated defendants | Commonwealth: prosecutor has broad discretion; no constitutional violation shown | Court: claim meritless; no protected class or Eighth/14th Amendment basis; prosecutorial discretion upheld |
| Admission of recorded post-collision statement | Hardy: snippet was prejudicial and did not meaningfully rebut his remorse testimony; incomplete under KRE 106 | Commonwealth: statement relevant to state of mind and inconsistent with remorse; trial court allowed portion as rebuttal | Court: admission proper; prejudice alone insufficient under KRE 403; KRE 106 objection not preserved; no abuse of discretion |
| Sufficiency of evidence linking Hardy’s conduct to death | Hardy: lacked memory and contested causation | Commonwealth: eyewitnesss, accident reconstruction, and EDR showed excessive speed and rear-end impact with no braking | Court: evidence supported wanton murder and related convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- English v. Commonwealth, 993 S.W.2d 941 (Ky. 1999) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings is abuse of discretion)
- Gray v. Commonwealth, 480 S.W.3d 253 (Ky. 2016) (KRE 403 admission balancing and undue prejudice discussion)
- Davenport v. Commonwealth, 177 S.W.3d 763 (Ky. 2005) (prohibits presenting unsupported theories that invite jury speculation)
- Porter v. Commonwealth, 394 S.W.3d 382 (Ky. 2011) (no constitutional right to plea bargain; prosecutor discretion)
- United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (U.S. 1996) (limits on selective prosecution claims)
- United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 (U.S. 1979) (prosecutorial charging discretion principles)
- Johnson v. Commonwealth, 864 S.W.2d 266 (Ky. 1993) (mere non-prosecution of others does not establish selective enforcement)
- Webb v. Commonwealth, 387 S.W.3d 319 (Ky. 2012) (prejudice under KRE 403 alone does not mandate exclusion)
- Sykes v. Commonwealth, 453 S.W.3d 722 (Ky. 2015) (KRE 106 and rule of completeness)