Southworth v. Commonwealth
2014 Ky. LEXIS 100
| Ky. | 2014Background
- Donald Southworth was convicted of murdering his wife Umi and sentenced to life in prison.
- On appeal, Southworth challenges a claimed entitlement to a directed verdict and the admissibility of KRE 404(b) evidence regarding an unusual semen condom incident involving Hesti Johnson.
- The Commonwealth's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence of motive, opportunity, and suspect behavior surrounding Umi’s planned move and divorce.
- Umi was found dead from blunt-force trauma; semen not belonging to Southworth was found in Umi, and DNA evidence tied some scene evidence to Umi.
- Witness testimony portrayed Southworth as controlling; several witnesses described discord, control, and financial secrecy surrounding Umi’s divorce and Almira’s music career.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Southworth was entitled to a directed verdict | Insufficient circ. proof; evidence could support innocence. | Circumstantial proof supports guilt beyond reasonable doubt. | Not entitled; sufficient evidence supports guilt. |
| Whether the 404(b) testimony about the condom incident was improperly admitted | Evidence was precluded as improper propensity evidence and prejudicial. | Knowledge/modus operandi evidence showing signature capacity was relevant. | Error in admission; prejudicial and not harmless; conviction reversed and remanded. |
| Whether other issues (venue, witness separation, expert testimony) are reversible or moot | Various trial-issues could affect retrial fairness. | Some issues are moot or contingent on retrial conditions. | Moot or not decided; reversal on 404(b) grounds controls; retrial possible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Benham, 816 S.W.2d 186 (Ky.1991) (directed-verdict standard; deferential review)
- Collinsworth v. Commonwealth, 476 S.W.2d 201 (Ky.1972) (circumstantial evidence sufficiency standard)
- Ulster County Court v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1979) (permissive inferences vs. reasonable inferences; evidence rules)
- O’Bryan v. Commonwealth, 634 S.W.2d 153 (Ky.1982) (404(b) evidence admissibility; prejudice and relevance)
- Briner v. General Motors Corp., 461 S.W.2d 99 (Ky.1970) (inference-upon-inference; pyramiding of inferences limitations)
- Pengleton v. Commonwealth, 172 S.W.2d 52 (Ky.1943) (inference rules; prior cases cited on inference limits)
- Mee v. Commonwealth, 348 S.W.3d 627 (Ky.2011) (knowledge evidence relevance; conditional relevance in 404(b))
- Gessa, 971 F.2d 1257 (6th Cir.1992) (unusual capacity/knowledge admissible to identify perpetrator)
- Thomas, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 199 (Cal.1992) (stalking evidence admissible to show opportunity; unique capacity)