Shannon Geary v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
2015 SC 000218
| Ky. | Jul 11, 2016Background
- On Aug. 27, 2014, William Faith was robbed in his home by three people; one masked robber used a black bandana and held Faith at gunpoint. Stolen items later appeared at Lola Caudill’s residence.
- Jesse Hailey and Kristi Copeland (co-defendants) pled guilty to first-degree robbery; Copeland told police Geary was the masked third robber and said she had given Geary a bandana to wear. Faith could not identify the masked robber. Geary’s wife was Faith’s paramour.
- Police recovered one black and one dark-blue bandana from Copeland’s purse three days after the robbery; the Commonwealth did not intend to introduce those bandanas at trial.
- Geary was indicted for first-degree robbery, felon in possession of a handgun, and being a persistent felony offender; a jury convicted him of first-degree robbery and, after a persistent-offender finding, recommended a 30-year sentence.
- Geary appealed, raising four issues: denial of DNA testing on the bandanas, exclusion of his alternate-perpetrator testimony (that Jeff Springer committed the crime), denial of impeachment on an alleged inconsistent statement by Copeland, and allegedly erroneous parole-officer testimony at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Geary) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of DNA testing of two bandanas | KRS 31.185 entitles defense to use state lab; testing could produce exculpatory DNA linking bandana to alternate perpetrator | Bandanas lacked nexus to the masked bandana used in robbery; testing not reasonably calculated to produce admissible evidence | Court affirmed denial: no sufficient connection by time/place/circumstance; testing would not likely lead to admissible evidence |
| Exclusion of alternate-perpetrator testimony (Jeff Springer) | Geary wanted to testify Springer framed him; Springer had motive to frame because of earlier testimony Geary gave in unrelated case | Theory speculative; no independent link between Springer and victim/crime; risk of confusing jury outweighs probative value | Affirmed exclusion: proffered evidence was too remote/speculative under KRE 403; no abuse of discretion |
| Denial to impeach Copeland for prior inconsistent statement | Geary sought to impeach Copeland for allegedly telling police she changed clothes in the van, contradicting trial testimony | Record shows police were not asked that question; Copeland only said she assumed she had told police; no actual inconsistency | Affirmed: no actual inconsistent prior statement under KRE 613(a); collateral and immaterial |
| Parole officer testimony about good-time credit (sentencing) | Officer’s uncertainty could have misled jury about parole/credits and affected sentencing recommendation | Commonwealth cured through further questioning; Geary consented and did not renew objection; any error not preserved and, if assumed, not palpable or prejudicial | Affirmed: error not preserved; even if error, not palpable or prejudicial given violent facts and criminal history |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. Commonwealth, 992 S.W.2d 183 (Ky. 1999) (authentication requires showing integrity and connection to asserted fact)
- Barth v. Commonwealth, 80 S.W.3d 390 (Ky. 2001) (KRE 901 codifies identification rule and common-law nexus test)
- Davis v. Commonwealth, 147 S.W.3d 709 (Ky. 2004) (application of identification/authentication principles)
- Gray v. Commonwealth, 480 S.W.3d 253 (Ky. 2016) (alternate-perpetrator evidence is governed by relevance and KRE 403 balancing, not strict motive/opportunity test)
- Beaty v. Commonwealth, 125 S.W.3d 196 (Ky. 2003) (prior formulation requiring motive and opportunity for alternate-perpetrator testimony)
- Robinson v. Commonwealth, 181 S.W.3d 30 (Ky. 2005) (prosecutorial use of incorrect or false testimony can violate due process when material)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 283 S.W.3d 665 (Ky. 2009) (standard for noticing unpreserved palpable error on appeal)
- Winstead v. Commonwealth, 283 S.W.3d 678 (Ky. 2009) (harmless-error analysis; conviction stands if judgment not substantially swayed)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (U.S. 1946) (framework for assessing whether error had substantial influence on jury verdict)