Winstead v. Commonwealth
327 S.W.3d 386
| Ky. | 2010Background
- Winstead was convicted by a jury of murder and robbery; LWOP/25 for murder and 20 years for robbery, run consecutively per trial court judgment.
- The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmations: convictions affirmed; but judgment vacated because consecutive sentencing violates extradition-based limits and must be concurrent.
- Key factual context: victim Ann Branson stabbed; no eyewitness; Winstead was suspected due to gambling debts and a knife found under his mattress.
- Wife Rainwater testified about alibi timing and Winstead’s directions to lying regarding arrival time; spousal privilege and marital communications issues arose.
- Winstead fled to Costa Rica and was extradited; diplomatic notes (Note 185) framed the sentence limitations; issue of LWOP/25 compatibility with extradition.
- Court remands for resentencing to run concurrent with LWOP/25 and issues a new judgment accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spousal privilege application harmed trial? | Winstead: Rainwater’s testimony violated KRE 504. | Commonwealth: privilege otherwise complied; some testimony non-confidential. | Harmless error; no reversal. |
| Jailhouse informants: palpable error? | Sixth Amendment rights violated by deliberate elicitation; palpable error. | Not clearly elicited; not palpable error. | No palpable error; convictions affirmed. |
| Directed verdict should have been granted? | Evidence insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict. | Evidence sufficient; circumstantial but admissible. | No directed verdict; evidence supported verdict. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct requires new trial? | Closing misstatements improperly influenced jury. | Admonitions cured potential prejudice; overall fairness maintained. | Not reversible; misconduct not severe. |
| Consecutive vs concurrent sentencing under extradition terms? | LWOP/25 may violate Costa Rica extradition assurances. | Extradition Note 185 allows LWOP/25 as long as parole possibility exists. | LWOP/25 permissible under Note 185; but require resentence to concurrent with robbery term; remanded for new judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bedell v. Commonwealth, 870 S.W.2d 779 (Ky. 1993) (standards for prosecutorial conduct and trial fairness)
- McBeath v. Commonwealth, 244 S.W.3d 22 (Ky. 2007) (test for jailhouse informant admissibility and elicitation)
- Davis v. Commonwealth, 147 S.W.3d 709 (Ky. 2004) (circumstantial evidence sufficiency standard)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 174 S.W.3d 421 (Ky. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard for new trial rulings)
- Hamilton v. Commonwealth, 285 S.W.2d 156 (Ky. 1955) (juror cell phone/communication misconduct risk)
- Shemwell v. Commonwealth, 294 S.W.3d 430 (Ky. 2009) (mistrial and jury deliberation considerations)
- Ratliff v. Commonwealth, 194 S.W.3d 258 (Ky. 2006) (instructions review and standards)