Summary
The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed Rick Norton's convictions and sentences for second-degree burglary, first-degree persistent felony offender status, and contempt. The court held that limited sentencing information may be discussed during voir dire and that the prosecutor's sentencing-related closing argument was proper under the circumstances, overruling Carter v. Commonwealth to the extent it imposed an absolute prohibition. The court also held that the statutory concurrent-sentencing requirement does not apply to contempt sentences, permitting Norton's 90-day contempt sentence to run consecutively to his felony sentence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the prosecutor's references to sentencing information during voir dire and the guilt-or-innocence phase required reversal or a mistrial.
- Whether a trial court may order a contempt sentence to run consecutively to a felony sentence despite the statutory concurrent-sentencing rule for definite and indeterminate terms.
- Whether the trial court improperly calculated Norton's credit for pretrial incarceration in connection with the contempt sentence.
Holdings
- Sentencing information is not categorically inadmissible during voir dire when the information is incidental to a proper inquiry into whether prospective jurors can consider the permissible punishment.
- A prosecutor may address sentencing-related motive during closing argument when the defendant has placed penalty at issue and the argument responds to the defendant's theory and testimony.
- The statutory requirement that a definite sentence and an indeterminate sentence run concurrently does not apply to a sentence imposed as punishment for contempt of court; a contempt sentence may run consecutively to a felony sentence.
- The trial court did not commit reversible error by deducting the ninety-day contempt sentence from Norton's otherwise available credit for pretrial incarceration because the method produced the same result as imposing ninety additional consecutive days.
Key quotations
“We therefore overrule Carter v. Commonwealth insofar as it holds that sentencing information is always inadmissible during the guilt/innocence phase of the trial.” (at 753)
“Therefore, we hold that the KRS 532.110(1)(a) requirement of concurrent sentencing does not apply to terms imposed as punishment for contempt of court.” (at 755)
“If the courts are to have any real power to control the behavior of the defendants in their courtrooms, the power of contempt must carry with it a real punishment—the possibility of serving additional time imprisoned for contemptible behavior.” (at 755)
Factual background
Norton broke a basement window and entered, or was alleged to have entered, Judy Schill's home. Schill's sons chased and detained him until police arrived, and Norton admitted breaking the window but denied entering the dwelling. During trial, he engaged in disruptive behavior, leading the court to hold him in contempt and impose a ninety-day sentence consecutive to his twenty-year burglary and persistent-felony-offender sentence.
Procedural history
A jury convicted Norton of second-degree burglary and being a first-degree persistent felony offender. The trial court imposed a twenty-year enhanced burglary sentence and a ninety-day contempt sentence for disruptive courtroom behavior, ordering the contempt sentence to run consecutively. The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the convictions and sentences.