Sluss v. Commonwealth, 450 S.W.3d 279

Background

On June 24, 2010, Ross Brandon Sluss drove the wrong way, causing a crash that killed 11‑year‑old Destiny Brewer and injured others; Sluss failed field sobriety tests and toxicology showed marijuana and multiple prescription drugs.
Sluss was indicted and convicted of murder, multiple assaults, DUI, and evidence tampering and sentenced to life in prison.
Jury selection in Martin County was troubled: the defense moved for change of venue (supported by affidavits), 50 jurors were excused for cause, and several prospective jurors disclosed case exposure or connections to victims.
Defense challenged several jurors (notably Deena Booth) for cause; Booth acknowledged familiarity with the memorial, knew people connected to the victim, and had heard Sluss had a reputation for drug use but said she could be fair.
This Court previously remanded on juror social‑media contacts and the trial court held hearings; the current appeal raised multiple issues but the Court reverses solely because the trial court abused its discretion by not striking juror Deena Booth for cause.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Sluss)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth)	Held
Failure to strike juror for cause (Deena Booth)	Booth’s connections and statements showed objective bias; she should have been excused and refusal requires reversal	Booth said she could set aside pretrial knowledge and be fair; trial court did not abuse discretion	Reversed: cumulative associations and reputation knowledge gave reasonable ground to doubt impartiality; trial court abused discretion by not excusing Booth
Change of venue	Martin County was too prejudiced (pretrial publicity, community grief, many strikes for cause); motion supported by affidavits and unopposed by Commonwealth	Trial court has discretion; absence of Commonwealth counter‑affidavits does not mandate venue change	No automatic reversal; court noted venue could have been granted and remanded guidance for future requests but did not order venue change now
Juror social‑media contacts (prior remand)	Social‑media interactions between jurors and victim’s mother prejudiced trial	Trial court’s post‑remand hearings found no prejudicial effect or falsehoods were inadvertent	Not reached in detail because retrial will remove issue; trial court’s remand findings were adequate for original record
Admission of urinalysis and related evidence	Urinalysis should be excluded (citing Burton) and statements suppressed under Miranda; medical records/chain of custody challenged	Urinalysis admissible given abundant additional impairment evidence; statements were either non‑custodial or spontaneous; medical records/authentication adequate; chain of custody sufficiently established	Admissibility upheld: urinalysis and other evidentiary rulings not reversible error; Miranda claims and chain‑of‑custody challenges rejected

Key Cases Cited

Adkins v. Commonwealth, 96 S.W.3d 779 (Ky.2003) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for juror‑for‑cause rulings)
Shane v. Commonwealth, 243 S.W.3d 336 (Ky.2007) (court must weigh probability of bias from juror responses and demeanor)
Montgomery v. Commonwealth, 819 S.W.2d 713 (Ky.1991) (objective bias can render a juror legally partial)
Whitler v. Commonwealth, 810 S.W.2d 505 (Ky.1991) (change‑of‑venue practice and counter‑affidavit considerations)
Stoker v. Commonwealth, 828 S.W.2d 619 (Ky.1992) (discussing Whitler and venue discretion)
Jacobs v. Commonwealth, 870 S.W.2d 412 (Ky.1994) (implied bias where many jurors struck for cause)
Brewster v. Commonwealth, 568 S.W.2d 232 (Ky.1978) (change of venue analysis for prejudicial publicity)
Burton v. Commonwealth, 300 S.W.3d 126 (Ky.2009) (limitations on admitting urinalysis without supporting context)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation and warning requirements)
Gabbard v. Commonwealth, 297 S.W.3d 844 (Ky.2009) (preservation rule: identify on strike sheet jurors you would have used peremptory strikes on)