Shawn Welsh v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
2020 SC 0021
| Ky. | Feb 21, 2022Background
- In October 2018 Shawn Welsh led a ~18-minute, multi-jurisdictional high-speed chase beginning in Meade County, joined by Vine Grove and Radcliff officers, and ending in Hardin County.
- Welsh drove at very high speeds, ran lights/signs, forced other vehicles to yield, and five seconds before impact his truck recorded 79 mph; he collided with a vehicle carrying four teens, killing two and seriously injuring two.
- Post-crash testing showed methamphetamine at a level far above therapeutic; the truck was later discovered to be stolen.
- A Hardin County jury convicted Welsh of two counts of wanton murder, two counts of first-degree assault, fleeing/evading, receiving stolen property, DUI, meth possession, and as a PFO I; he received life sentences for the homicide and assault convictions and other consecutive terms.
- On appeal Welsh did not deny culpability but argued the trial court wrongly excluded (1) law-enforcement pursuit policies (to show officer fault and as mitigating evidence) and (2) portions of Deputy Casey’s personnel file (to impeach credibility).
- The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed: it held the pursuit policies were not relevant to Welsh’s mens rea and culpability, and exclusion of the personnel-file impeachment evidence (though arguably admissible as to a lying reprimand) was not an abuse of discretion or was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Welsh's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of law‑enforcement pursuit policies | Policies show officers violated pursuit rules and their fault would mitigate Welsh’s culpability or support convictions on lesser offenses | Officer fault irrelevant to defendant’s mens rea; policies would confuse issues and are not probative of Welsh’s wanton mental state | Court affirmed exclusion: officer non‑compliance with pursuit policies does not negate Welsh’s wantonness or create a defense; probative value insufficient under KRE 401/403 |
| Use of Deputy Casey’s personnel file for impeachment | File contains reprimands (including lying about gas mileage) that impeach Casey’s credibility; Casey opened the door by denying reprimands | Reprimands are irrelevant/character evidence; extrinsic specific‑instance proof barred by KRE 608(b) | Court upheld exclusion as within discretion; even if exclusion of lying reprimand erred, error was harmless given overwhelming evidence of Welsh’s conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Robertson v. Commonwealth, 82 S.W.3d 832 (Ky. 2002) (shared officer fault does not exonerate defendant; focus on defendant’s mens rea)
- People v. Schmies, 51 Cal. Rptr. 2d 185 (Ct. App. 1996) (upheld exclusion of pursuit policy; reasonableness of officers’ conduct not an element of defendant’s offense)
- United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) (rulemakers may exclude evidence without abridging right to present a defense if rules are not arbitrary)
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) (evidentiary rules can limit defense evidence when probative value is outweighed)
- Embry v. Commonwealth, 32 S.W.2d 979 (Ky. 1930) (contributory negligence is not a defense to a criminal prosecution)
- Winstead v. Commonwealth, 283 S.W.3d 678 (Ky. 2009) (harmless‑error standard; error is harmless if it likely did not substantially sway the verdict)