Quisenberry v. Commonwealth
336 S.W.3d 19
| Ky. | 2011Background
- James Quisenberry and Kenneth Williams were tried jointly in Jefferson Circuit Court for robbery, murder of Earon Harper, and related offenses including assault on Harper’s two-year-old daughter Erica; the jury found Williams guilty of murder and Erica’s assault, Quisenberry guilty of second-degree manslaughter and facilitating the crimes against Erica, and both convicted of tampering with evidence; Williams received life plus other terms, Quisenberry forty-five years plus; the verdicts reflected Williams as principal in the murder and Erica’s assault, and Quisenberry as a participant in the robbery and related offenses; Turner’s testimony linked both defendants to the crime; pretrial statements by both were admitted in redacted form, with paraphrase of Quisenberry’s statement read at trial; the defense contested severance, limiting instruction on redacted statements, and Miranda compliance; the Court upheld the joint trial and admitted redacted statements with limiting instruction where applicable; on appeal, Williams challenged severance, limiting instruction, and Miranda suppression, while Quisenberry challenged directed verdict and cumulative punishment for facilitation offenses; the Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed both convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williams’ severance request was required or the joint trial prejudicial. | Williams argues severance needed due to prejudicial paraphrased statement. | Quisenberry and Williams contend joint trial risks confrontation issues. | No abuse of discretion; redacted statement permissible and no manifest prejudice. |
| Whether the court should have given a sua sponte limiting instruction on Quisenberry’s redacted statement. | Williams contends lacking limiting instruction was error. | Barth requires a request for limiting instruction; waiver/palatable error applies if unpreserved. | Not reversible; absence of sua sponte instruction was not palpable error under the record. |
| Whether Williams’ Miranda rights were violated by the August 29, 2007 interrogation. | Williams asserts pre- and post-invocation questioning violated Miranda/Edwards. | Questioning continued only after non-unambiguous references to counsel; waiver valid. | Miranda and Edwards not violated; questioning was permissible given ambiguous invocation. |
| Whether the evidence sufficed to convict Quisenberry on the charged offenses. | Commonwealth asserts substantial evidence showed Quisenberry aided/participated. | Quisenberry claims no proof of intent or participation beyond presence. | Sufficient evidence supported convictions for robbery, manslaughter, and related offenses. |
| Whether double jeopardy barred cumulative punishment for facilitating assault and facilitating attempted murder of Erica. | Punishments for two separate facilitation offenses may be duplicative. | Erica’s thigh and head injuries evidence distinct acts; permissible under KRS 505.020. | Not barred; distinct acts justify separate convictions and sentences. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodgers v. Commonwealth, 285 S.W.3d 740 (Ky. 2009) (joinder and severance ruling on joint trials and jury prejudice)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (codefendant confession admissible with limiting instruction when redacted)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (unavailable confessions against codefendants in joint trials; need redaction)
- Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (1998) (facially incriminating redactions still problematic; Bruton concerns)
- Barth v. Commonwealth, 80 S.W.3d 390 (Ky. 2001) (limiting instruction required upon request; waiver considerations)
- Caudill v. Commonwealth, 120 S.W.3d 635 (Ky. 2003) (waiver/strategic decisions about limiting instructions)
- Welborn v. Commonwealth, 157 S.W.3d 608 (Ky. 2005) (multiple offenses based on distinct injuries; time to pause not required for separate offenses)