Wright v. Commonwealth, 391 S.W.3d 743

Wright was convicted by a Campbell Circuit Court jury of first-degree fleeing or evading police, fourth-degree assault, possession of marijuana, and first-degree persistent felony offender (PFO); total sentence 20 years and $600 fines.
On appeal Wright alleges erroneous jury instructions on fleeing or evading, improper imposition of fines after indigence finding, potential cruel and unusual punishment, denial of a directed verdict, discovery/due process issues, and denial of a continuance.
The appellate court held the jury instructions for fleeing or evading were erroneous and remanded for retrial on fleeing or evading and PFO.
The court also vacated the fines imposed for fourth-degree assault and possession of marijuana because Wright had been found indigent.
During trial Covington and Jenkins were involved in a domestic-violence-like altercation leading to Wright’s flight; Buemi, the responding officer, arrested him and found Covington’s phone and marijuana on his person.
On remand, the court provided model instructions conforming to statute and the definition of an unmarried couple for the domestic-violence element.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were the jury instructions on fleeing or evading proper?	Wright argues instructions were defective and broadened by misdefining domestic violence.	Commonwealth contends the instructions were adequate under Kentucky law.	Instruction error prejudicial; remand for new trial with proper statutory definitions.
Must fines be imposed when the defendant is indigent?	Wright asserts fines were improperly imposed after a finding of indigence.	Commonwealth agrees improper, but argues preservation issues.	Fines vacated; convictions for the fined offenses affirmed.
Was the denial of Wright’s directed-verdict motion proper?	Wright claims insufficient proof to disobey a stop order or domestic-violence element.	Commonwealth asserts ample evidence supported denial.	No reversal; trial court did not err in denying the directed verdict.

Hilsmeier v. Chapman, 192 S.W.3d 340 (Ky. 2006) (bare bones instructions must state applicable law and evidence adequately)
Howard v. Commonwealth, 618 S.W.2d 177 (Ky. 1981) (instructions must be based on evidence and intelligibly state the law)
Parks v. Commonwealth, 192 S.W.3d 318 (Ky. 2006) (instructions should conform to statutory language)
Barnett v. Wiley, 103 S.W.3d 17 (Ky. 2003) (case on domestic violence instruction scope (unmarried couple))
Iowa v. Kellogg, 542 N.W.2d 514 (Iowa 1996) (jury instruction too broad when defining domestic violence concepts)
Quisenberry v. Commonwealth, 336 S.W.3d 19 (Ky. 2011) (invited error and standard for appellate review of trial errors)
Commonwealth v. Benham, 816 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1991) (directed-verdict standard: weigh evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth)
Commonwealth v. Sawhill, 660 S.W.2d 3 (Ky. 1983) (directed verdict standard cited in review)
Trowel v. Commonwealth, 550 S.W.2d 530 (Ky. 1977) (directed-verdict framework)
Harp v. Commonwealth, 266 S.W.3d 813 (Ky. 2008) (prejudice presumption for erroneous instructions)
Varble v. Commonwealth, 125 S.W.3d 246 (Ky. 2004) (elements and jury instruction standards)
Harper v. Commonwealth, 43 S.W.3d 261 (Ky. 2001) (jury instruction accuracy and preservation)