Noakes v. Commonwealth, 354 S.W.3d 116

On July 9, 2008, Noakes stabbed Barbara Rogers and Sharon Gette in Rogers’ home; Gette died, Rogers survived.
Police apprehended Noakes shortly after the incident; Rogers was 73, Gette 52 at the time.
At trial, Noakes did not contest the stabbings but asserted insanity; evidence focused on mental health.
The trial court instructed on murder, first-degree manslaughter, and attempted murder with insanity-related alternatives; jury found guilty of murder and attempted murder.
Noakes was also convicted of being a first-degree persistent felony offender; post-trial issues raised on appeal concern trial conduct and instructions.
Appellant raised four issues on appeal: directed verdict, insanity instruction, EED instruction, and prosecutorial misconduct; the court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Directed verdict on murder	Noakes contends insufficient evidence for murder.	Commonwealth failed to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt.	No reversible error; sufficient evidence supported murder under multiple theories.
Insanity instruction	Noakes argues the instruction improperly limited insanity to non-repeated antisocial conduct.	Noakes relies on KRS 504.020(2) requiring the limiting language; instruction proper.	Insanity instruction upheld; language consistent with statute and evidence; no abuse of discretion.
Extreme Emotional Disturbance (EED) instruction	Noakes argues the EED instruction misstated burden and allowed conviction without sufficient proof.	Noakes requested the instruction; under precedent, he cannot challenge content when he sought it.	Palpable error review rejected; Noakes barred from challenging due to requesting the instruction.
Prosecutorial misconduct	Noakes claims improper character evidence, malingering questions, antisocial disorder testimony, and closing misstatements.	Alleged evidentiary issues are not prosecutorial misconduct and preserved issues were not raised.	No reversible error; challenged closing remarks deemed permissible and evidentiary claims not prosecutorial misconduct.

Campbell v. Commonwealth, 564 S.W.2d 528 (Ky.1978) (directed-verdict standard; complete acquittal concept)
Kimbrough v. Commonwealth, 550 S.W.2d 525 (Ky.1977) (insufficient to sustain partial directed verdict)
Columbia Gas of Kentucky, Inc. v. Maynard, 532 S.W.2d 3 (Ky.1976) (directed-verdict limitations on partial sufficiency)
Mason v. Commonwealth, 565 S.W.2d 140 (Ky.1978) (insanity instruction when identical to requested instruction)
Commonwealth v. Southwood, 628 S.W.2d 897 (Ky.1981) (support for insanity-definitional framework)
Greene v. Commonwealth, 197 S.W.3d 76 (Ky.2006) (burden shift when EED evidence exists)
Padgett v. Commonwealth, 312 S.W.3d 336 (Ky.2010) (closing-argument latitude)
Brewer v. Commonwealth, 206 S.W.3d 343 (Ky.2006) (closing arguments and argument limits)
Slaughter v. Commonwealth, 744 S.W.2d 407 (Ky.1987) (standard for closing argument review)
Ratliff v. Commonwealth, 194 S.W.3d 258 (Ky.2006) (instruction-review presumptions and abuse of discretion)
Stopher v. Commonwealth, 57 S.W.3d 787 (Ky.2001) (preservation and evidentiary-error posture)
Duncan v. Commonwealth, 822 S.W.3d 81 (Ky.2010) (prosecutorial-misconduct framework; overall fairness)