Lanham v. Commonwealth

Summary

The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed Phillip Lanham’s convictions for murdering his wife and tampering with physical evidence. The court held that an oral motion in limine sufficiently preserved the challenge to an unedited interrogation recording under Kentucky Rule of Evidence 103(d), but concluded that the detective’s repeated accusations that Lanham was lying were admissible to provide context for Lanham’s changing responses.

Holdings

1. Under KRE 103(d), a specific motion in limine that identifies the evidence and grounds for exclusion and is resolved by an order of record preserves the issue for appellate review without a contemporaneous objection when the evidence is later offered. Tucker and its progeny are overruled to the extent they contradict the plain language of KRE 103(d), but broad or generic motions remain insufficient.
2. Recorded accusations by an interrogating officer that a defendant is lying or that a jury will not believe him may be admitted to provide context for the defendant's responses when they are part of an ordinary interrogation technique. The comments are not admissible for the truth of the proposition that the defendant was lying, and the trial court should give a limiting admonition upon request.
3. Although the recorded interrogation comments were admissible only for context and a requested limiting admonition would have been required, the absence of an admonition was not reviewable because Lanham did not request one.
4. The diary entry concerning conflict over the victim's grandchildren was admissible as evidence of conflict and potential motive. The entry referring to Lanham's possible criminal activity and the victim's hatred was, at most, harmless error if improperly admitted.
5. The victim's family members' restrained crying while crime-scene photographs were shown did not constitute an inflammatory emotional outburst requiring reversal. The claim concerning photograph buttons worn during the penalty phase was unpreserved because Lanham did not contemporaneously object.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a specific motion in limine resolved by an order of record preserves an evidentiary issue for appellate review under KRE 103(d) without a contemporaneous objection when the evidence is offered at trial.
2. Whether recorded statements by a police officer accusing a suspect of lying and asserting that a jury would not believe him are admissible when offered to provide context for the suspect's responses during an interrogation.
3. Whether the trial court erred in admitting two disputed entries from the victim's diary.
4. Whether the victim's family's crying during the guilt phase or wearing photograph buttons during the penalty phase required a new trial or reversal.

Disposition

affirmed