Murray v. Commonwealth, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 230

Murray and Knights, both deaf, are charged with two murders, one robbery, one burglary, and two tampering with evidence counts arising from two incidents about nine days apart.
Knights and Murray allegedly planned and carried out the Spencer murder; Murray claimed to be lookout, Knights claimed Murray killed Spencer.
A separate Penney murder occurred a week later; both used knives stolen from an army surplus store.
Knights pleaded guilty to all charges; Murray was tried, with Knights’ prior statements and conduct examined at trial.
Murray sought separate trials for the murders and dismissal of tampering counts; the court denied these motions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Commonwealth improperly bolstered Knights’ testimony	Murray argues cross-exam of Christiansen improperly bolstered Knights.	Commonwealth contends rehabilitation via prior statements admissible in limited scope.	Harmless error; no substantial influence on verdict.
Whether the murder charges should have been severed	Joinder prejudicial since murders are separate events.	Joinder warranted by logical relationship and judicial economy.	No abuse of discretion; joinder maintained.
Whether tampering with physical evidence charges are unconstitutional	Tampering counts violate Fifth Amendment and Kentucky Const. protections.	Tampering is non-testimonial; no compelled production.	No error; charges proper.
Whether admission of homosexual conduct evidence was proper	Evidence prejudicial due to stigma and non-necessity.	Relationship relevant to defendant’s control and intimidation defense; voir dire can address prejudice.	Admissible; probative value outweighed prejudice.
Whether the trial court erred in not instructing on criminal facilitation	Could convict Murray as criminal facilitator for Spencer murder/robbery.	Evidence shows Murray acted with intent; no basis for a lesser-included facilitation instruction.	No error; two theories presented; facilitation instruction not warranted.

Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150 (Supreme Court, 1995) (prior consistent statements admissible only to rebut motive to fabricate and not as substantive evidence)
White v. Commonwealth, 904 S.W.2d 220 (Ky.1995) (facilitation vs. participation distinction; two theories must be weighed)
James v. Commonwealth, 360 S.W.3d 189 (Ky.2012) (prior consistent statements for rehabilitation; limits and context)
Newman v. Stinson, 489 S.W.2d 826 (Ky.1972) (parallel protections between Kentucky Constitution and U.S. Fifth Amendment)
Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201 (Supreme Court, 1988) (testimonial vs. physical evidence; compelled production limits)
Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (Supreme Court, 1976) (testimonial communications and Fifth Amendment scope)