Wilson v. Commonwealth
2014 Ky. LEXIS 330
Ky.2014Background
- On Aug. 31, 2010, the Stephens home was burglarized; a locked steel box with three handguns, jewelry, and other property were taken. The stolen items were not recovered.
- License plate led police to Sarah Workman’s home; after a standoff, Joseph "Jody" Wilson surrendered and was identified as driver of the fleeing SUV. Teddy Kidwell testified Wilson left briefly, returned with a dark bag, and put it in the SUV.
- Wilson was charged with first-degree burglary, three counts of theft of a firearm, one count of theft of property worth $500+, and PFO allegations; a jury convicted and recommended concurrent sentences that totaled 25 years.
- During trial the Commonwealth elicited detailed portions of three domestic-violence petitions and protective-order narratives filed by Workman; the trial court admitted those narrative details over defense objection.
- The court also admitted a recorded jail phone call and engaged in aggressive impeachment of Workman; Wilson raised several evidentiary and prosecutorial-misconduct claims on appeal.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) admission of the detailed domestic-violence narratives was an abuse of discretion requiring reversal; (2) multiple theft convictions for the three guns violated double jeopardy; and (3) evidence was insufficient to support first-degree burglary (armed) because Wilson did not have guns accessible while in the home.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Wilson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of detailed domestic-violence petitions to impeach Workman | Details were probative to show Workman feared Wilson and could affect her credibility | Admission of narrative allegations was unduly prejudicial and used to show bad character/propensity | Reversed: detailed narratives were overly prejudicial under KRE 403; limited evidence of fear was admissible but not the graphic detail admitted |
| Multiple theft convictions for three handguns (Double Jeopardy) | Separate counts for each firearm and an additional count for jewelry/property were proper | All items were taken in one transaction from one location; multiple convictions violate double jeopardy | Reversed as to multiple firearm theft convictions: a single taking in one transaction supports only one theft conviction |
| Sufficiency of evidence for first-degree burglary ("armed") | Taking the locked box containing guns equated to being "armed with a deadly weapon" during burglary | Wilson did not arrive armed, and the locked box meant the guns were not accessible or in his possession while in the home | Reversed as to first-degree burglary: Commonwealth failed to prove Wilson was "armed" during the burglary; at most second-degree burglary on remand |
| Admission of recorded phone call / impeachment methods (Moss/closing conduct) | Call and impeachment questions were relevant to credibility | Undisclosed recording and asking witness to label others as "liars" violated Moss and impeachment rules | Court cautioned trial court on remand: only relevant, non-prejudicial portions of call and proper impeachment allowed; repeated Moss-type questioning and asking witness to call others "liars" is improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayes v. Commonwealth, 698 S.W.2d 827 (Ky. 1985) (a burglar who leaves with weapons may be deemed armed during burglary; relates to when taking itself can supply the "armed" element)
- Ordway v. Commonwealth, 352 S.W.3d 584 (Ky. 2011) (taking multiple items in one transaction from one location constitutes a single theft for double jeopardy purposes)
- Fair v. Commonwealth, 652 S.W.2d 864 (Ky. 1983) (recognized Nichols principle: multiple items taken in same act/location constitute one larceny/theft)
- Maddox v. Commonwealth, 955 S.W.2d 718 (Ky. 1997) (evidence affecting witness credibility should not be excluded; impeachment rules discussed)
- Moss v. Commonwealth, 949 S.W.2d 579 (Ky. 1997) (limits on improper impeachment questions and asking witnesses to label others as liars)
- Purcell v. Commonwealth, 149 S.W.3d 382 (Ky. 2004) (KRE 403 undue prejudice analysis where prior-bad-act evidence may induce emotional decision)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 313 S.W.3d 577 (Ky. 2010) (evidence unduly prejudicial if it induces jury to decide by emotion rather than facts)