Summary
The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed Rahim Adil Dante Shabazz's convictions for marijuana trafficking, possession of drug paraphernalia, and first-degree persistent felony offender status. The court held that the prosecutor's questions, witness testimony, and closing argument concerning investigative steps did not create a manifest necessity for a mistrial. It also held that certified records showing a prior five-year probated sentence supported a reasonable inference that Shabazz was on probation when he committed the charged offenses, making the evidence sufficient to deny a directed verdict on the PFO determination.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether prosecutorial questions, witness testimony, and closing argument concerning investigative steps Shabazz could have requested created a fundamental defect requiring a mistrial.
- Whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to submit the first-degree persistent felony offender determination to the jury, particularly evidence that Shabazz was on probation when he committed the current offenses.
Holdings
- A mistrial was not required because the challenged comments and testimony did not create a fundamental defect or manifest necessity for a new trial. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying the mistrial motion.
- The Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to submit the first-degree PFO determination to the jury. Certified records showing a 1997 felony conviction followed by a five-year probated sentence, together with the 2001 date of the current offenses, supported a reasonable inference that Shabazz was on probation when he committed the current offenses.
Key quotations
“When a party moves for a mistrial, the trial court must determine whether there is a "manifest necessity" for a new trial.” (811)
“A reasonable inference is sufficient to meet the requirements of the PFO statute.” (814)
“On appellate review, the test of a directed verdict is, if under the evidence as a whole, it would be clearly unreasonable for a jury to find guilt, only then the defendant is entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal.” (815)
Factual background
Police conducting surveillance of Shabazz's residence recovered marijuana from a trash pull and obtained a search warrant. The search yielded marijuana, a firearm, a notebook, a digital scale, baggies, and cash; Shabazz later admitted selling marijuana and possessing the firearm. During trial, the prosecutor and witnesses referred to investigative steps Shabazz or his counsel could have requested, and the prosecutor made related closing-argument comments. In the penalty phase, certified records showed that Shabazz had prior felony convictions and had received a five-year probated sentence in 1997, covering the 2001 offenses.
Procedural history
Shabazz was convicted in the McCracken Circuit Court after a second trial on drug-trafficking, drug-paraphernalia, and persistent-felony-offender counts. The first trial resulted in a new trial because inadmissible evidence was admitted through a prosecution witness. At the second trial, the court denied a mistrial motion based on alleged burden-shifting comments and denied a directed verdict on the PFO determination. The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed.