Pettway v. Commonwealth, 470 S.W.3d 706

On March 23, 2009 Troya Sheckles was shot and killed in Shelby Park; multiple witnesses identified a male in dark clothing with a bandana.
Steven Pettway (then 16) and codefendant Dejuan Hammond were charged with Sheckles’s murder and related witness-offense counts (intimidation under KRS 524.040 and retaliation under KRS 524.055).
Commonwealth’s theory: Pettway killed Sheckles at Dejuan Hammond’s direction to prevent her from testifying against Lloyd Hammond in an earlier murder; evidence included a stashed 9-mm pistol and post‑shooting admissions by Pettway.
Jury convicted Pettway of murder and of intimidating a participant in the legal process (but acquitted on retaliation); sentenced to 50 years (murder) + 5 years (intimidation), consecutive (total 55 years).
Pettway appealed, raising (1) whether an intentional killing can support a KRS 524.040 intimidation conviction, and (2) whether delayed disclosure of discovery by the Commonwealth was arbitrary state action under Ky. Const. §2 requiring dismissal.

Issue	Pettway's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether an intentional murder of a witness can sustain conviction under KRS 524.040 (intimidating a participant in the legal process)	Killing a witness cannot constitute "intimidation" under KRS 524.040 because a dead person cannot be induced or influenced to act; thus conviction on that statute is improper	Relied on Hatfield to argue a defendant can be convicted of both murder/attempted murder and intimidation where the attack was meant to silence a witness	Reversed intimidation conviction: intentional killing cannot satisfy KRS 524.040 (which requires influencing or inducing the witness to act); murder conviction affirmed
Whether delayed or belated disclosure of discovery by the Commonwealth amounted to arbitrary state action under Ky. Const. §2 requiring dismissal with prejudice	Asked the Court to exercise supervisory power to declare prosecution forfeited and dismiss indictments with prejudice because of allegedly arbitrary discovery delays	Trial court provided remedies (mistrial for first failure; exclusion of belated evidence under RCr 7.24 for the later failure); no Brady violation shown and no prejudice warranting dismissal	Denied extraordinary relief: trial court remedies were adequate; no basis to dismiss with prejudice under §2 or exercise supervisory power

Hatfield v. Commonwealth, 250 S.W.3d 590 (Ky. 2008) (upheld convictions for attempted murder and intimidation where victim survived and evidence supported separate intents)
Martin v. Commonwealth, 207 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2006) (standard for reversing unpreserved error under RCr 10.26)
Reid v. Cowan, 502 S.W.2d 41 (Ky. 1973) (discusses court’s supervisory power and comment on remedies for prosecutorial error)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of materially favorable evidence by prosecution violates due process)