Quintez Johnson v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 2020 CA 000599

In May and June 2018 Quintez Johnson contacted two sellers via Facebook Marketplace and paid with counterfeit bills: $70 to James Jackson (three $20s and two $5s) and $120 to Andrew Thomas (six $20s).
Both victims discovered the bills were fake (marked “It’s not the money, it’s a joke”), reported to police, and later identified Johnson from Facebook messages and a photo lineup.
Johnson was charged with eleven counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the first degree (one count per counterfeit bill), convicted, and the jury found him a persistent felony offender in the first degree.
The jury recommended five years’ imprisonment (to run concurrently). The trial court imposed five years and enhanced the sentence to ten years based on the persistent felony offender finding; restitution of $190 was ordered to the victims.
Johnson appealed unpreserved claims of double jeopardy (multiplicity), due-process error in restitution (lack of an adversarial hearing), and improper limitation on jury nullification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Double jeopardy — multiple counts for each counterfeit bill	Johnson: statutes should be read transactionally; two transactions → at most two offenses	Commonwealth: statute and precedent treat each utterance/possession as a separate offense; sentences were concurrent so no multiple punishment problem	Court affirmed: no double jeopardy violation; per-bill counts permissible under KRS 516.050 and Williams reasoning
Restitution without adversarial hearing	Johnson: due process required an adversarial restitution hearing when parties disagree	Commonwealth: restitution requested at sentencing; victims’ testimony at trial established amounts; no dispute over amounts	Court affirmed: amount was established at trial; summary sentencing proceeding sufficient under Jones
Jury nullification / trial court instruction	Johnson: judge and defense counsel prevented jury from exercising nullification at penalty phase	Commonwealth: law prohibits instructing jury to disregard law; jury may disbelieve evidence but must follow law and statutory mandates	Court affirmed: trial court correctly instructed jury to follow law; no manifest injustice

Walden v. Commonwealth, 805 S.W.2d 102 (Ky. 1991) (double jeopardy protection not waived by failure to object)
Williams v. Commonwealth, 213 S.W.3d 671 (Ky. 2006) (each unlawful dispensation or act can constitute a separate offense under statute wording)
Early v. Commonwealth, 470 S.W.3d 729 (Ky. 2015) (legislative wording indicates intent to punish individual acts rather than treat continuing conduct as a single offense)
McNeil v. Commonwealth, 468 S.W.3d 858 (Ky. 2015) (double jeopardy bars multiple punishments and successive prosecutions for the same offense)
Jones v. Commonwealth, 382 S.W.3d 22 (Ky. 2011) (restitution may be determined at sentencing in a summary adversarial proceeding unless complexity requires a fuller hearing)
Medley v. Commonwealth, 704 S.W.2d 190 (Ky. 1985) (jury may disbelieve evidence but cannot be instructed to disregard law or to nullify sentencings/statutory mandates)
United States v. Avery, 717 F.2d 1020 (6th Cir. 1983) (jurors have power to nullify but duty is to apply the law as instructed)