Springfield v. Commonwealth
410 S.W.3d 589
| Ky. | 2013Background
- Appellant Albert Springfield was charged with first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance (sale of crack) and being a first-degree persistent felony offender (PFO); jury found him guilty on both and recommended the maximum 20-year sentence (enhanced from 5 years by PFO status).
- Undercover purchase: Tina Eisenhower (working with Deputy Shawn Bean) used a hidden camera/microphone and $30 to buy crack from Springfield; Eisenhower was paid $100 each time she made such buys for law enforcement.
- The surveillance video and audio of the drug transaction were admitted into evidence and played at trial; during deliberations the jury requested and was allowed to replay the tape in the jury room outside the defendant’s presence.
- Voir dire: a prospective juror expressed religious inability to judge others (cited "Joshua, the Messiah") and equivocated about whether he could render a verdict; the Commonwealth moved to strike for cause and the trial court excused him.
- Defense requested jury instructions on criminal facilitation (lesser culpability) and second-degree PFO; the court refused both and gave only the trafficking and first-degree PFO instructions.
- Appellant appealed, raising errors as to (1) jury re-watching the videotape in the deliberation room, (2) refusal to instruct on criminal facilitation, (3) excusal of a juror for religious views, and (4) denial of a second-degree PFO instruction; the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excusal of a prospective juror for religious views was erroneous | Springfield: excusal destroyed randomness; juror was merely "not prosecution prone" | Trial court: juror said he could not judge others and only "guessed" he could render a verdict; thus not impartial | No abuse of discretion; excusal proper because juror indicated inability to be impartial |
| Whether allowing jury to replay video/audio in jury room outside defendant's presence violated Confrontation/RCr rules | Springfield: replaying tape outside court violated right to be present and RCr 9.74 requiring communications in open court | Commonwealth: trial court has discretion; the recording was non-testimonial tangible evidence akin to a photograph | Afforded discretion; tape was non-testimonial and jurors could review it in the jury room |
| Whether court erred by refusing facilitation instruction (lesser culpability) | Springfield: evidence could support facilitation (defense theory that he merely aided or was indifferent) | Commonwealth: no evidence supported facilitation; defendant directly sold/trafficked the drug | No instruction required; no reasonable juror could find facilitation on the record |
| Whether court erred by refusing second-degree PFO instruction | Springfield: jury may disbelieve parts of Commonwealth’s proof and could convict as second-degree PFO | Commonwealth: PFO proof must be accepted all-or-nothing absent evidence disputing prior convictions | No error; under Payne jury must accept PFO proof in full absent evidence putting prior convictions in dispute |
Key Cases Cited
- Shane v. Commonwealth, 243 S.W.3d 336 (Ky. 2007) (standard: juror-strike-for-cause reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Allen v. Commonwealth, 338 S.W.3d 252 (Ky. 2011) ("reasonable juror" standard for deciding whether a lesser-offense instruction is warranted)
- Thompkins v. Commonwealth, 54 S.W.3d 147 (Ky. 2001) (no facilitation instruction where no evidentiary foundation for lesser theory)
- Payne v. Commonwealth, 656 S.W.2d 719 (Ky. 1983) (PFO proof must be accepted in full by jury absent evidence raising dispute as to prior convictions)
- Burkhart v. Commonwealth, 125 S.W.3d 848 (Ky. 2003) (distinguishing testimonial exhibits and concerns about undue emphasis when exhibits are in jury room)
- Anderson v. Commonwealth, 231 S.W.3d 117 (Ky. 2007) (review of evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion)