Mullins v. Commonwealth
350 S.W.3d 434
| Ky. | 2011Background
- Appellant Mullins was convicted of murder, tampering with physical evidence, and persistent felony offender in the first degree.
- The murder occurred at 742 Whitney Avenue in Lexington; witnesses placed Mullins at the scene with others.
- Witnesses Porter and Cayson testified Mullins shot Faulkner and fled in Porter's car; Porter described a shiny object in Mullins' hand.
- Ashley White testified Mullins shot Faulkner and admitted it two days later; she linked motive to Faulkner stealing money.
- Forensic evidence showed three .44-caliber bullets matching a revolver; no gun or shell casings were found at the scene.
- Mullins was sentenced to 35 years, with murder affirmed and tampering reversed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Instruction on first-degree manslaughter EED vs. intent theory | Mullins waived EED; no EED evidence | Trial should have used EED theory | EED instruction was waived; no error |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing statements | Misquoting statements and implying non-testifying silence | Statements were within wide closing‑argument latitude | No reversible error; not flagrant; overwhelming evidence |
| Admissibility of handgun testimony | handgun evidence relevant to motive/means | No sufficient nexus to crime | Admissible; sufficient nexus to relate to means and manner |
| Directed verdict on tampering with physical evidence | Sufficient evidence to prove concealment/impairment | No proof of intent to impair or concealment | Tampering conviction reversed for insufficiency of intent evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Quisenberry v. Commonwealth, 336 S.W.3d 19 (Ky.2011) (invited error waiver analysis for failure to preserve EED claim)
- Barnes v. Commonwealth, 91 S.W.3d 564 (Ky.2002) (prosecutorial misconduct standard; need for cure by admonishment)
- Tamme v. Commonwealth, 973 S.W.2d 13 (Ky.1998) (standard for flagrant misconduct in closing arguments)
- Major v. Commonwealth, 275 S.W.3d 706 (Ky.2009) (admissibility of gun‑possession evidence; relevancy factors)
- Henderson v. Commonwealth, 85 S.W.3d 618 (Ky.2002) (tampering analysis when evidence found in unconventional location)
- Dillingham v. Commonwealth, 995 S.W.2d 377 (Ky.1999) (ownership of gun and tampering inference)
- Williams v. Commonwealth, 336 S.W.3d 42 (Ky.2011) (tampering/conduct surrounding evidence)
- Nourse v. Commonwealth, 177 S.W.3d 691 (Ky.2005) (active steps showing intent to impair evidence)