Wright v. Commonwealth

391 S.W.3d 743 (Ky. 2012) · Supreme Court of Kentucky · October 25, 2012

Summary

The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the jury instructions for first-degree fleeing or evading police were erroneous because they did not require the jury to determine whether the defendant and the victim were members of an unmarried couple as defined by statute. The court reversed the convictions and sentences for fleeing or evading and first-degree persistent felony offender status and remanded for further proceedings. It affirmed the convictions for fourth-degree assault and possession of marijuana but vacated the fines imposed because the defendant had been found indigent.

Court
Supreme Court of Kentucky
Writing for the Court
Justice Scott; Chief Justice Minton; Justice Abramson; Justice Cunningham; Justice Noble; Justice Venters; Justice Schroder
Jurisdiction
Kentucky
Decision date
October 25, 2012
Procedural posture
Wright appealed as a matter of right from a Campbell Circuit Court judgment entered after a jury convicted him of first-degree fleeing or evading police, fourth-degree assault, possession of marijuana, and being a first-degree persistent felony offender.
Standard of review
Jury-instruction error is reviewed for whether the instructions properly and intelligibly state the law and conform to the applicable statute; erroneous instructions are presumed prejudicial unless the Commonwealth affirmatively shows that no prejudice resulted. A directed-verdict ruling is reviewed under whether, viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the Commonwealth, it would be clearly unreasonable for a jury to find the defendant guilty.
Precedential value
Published Kentucky Supreme Court opinion; precedential
Parties
James M. Wright v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

jury instructionscriminal procedurestatutory interpretationappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

Criminal lawCriminal procedureAppellate practice

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the jury instructions for first-degree fleeing or evading police properly stated the statutory domestic-violence and unmarried-couple elements.
  2. Whether the trial court erred by imposing criminal fines after finding Wright indigent.
  3. Whether the trial court erred in denying Wright's motion for a directed verdict.
  4. Whether Wright's convictions and sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
  5. Whether the Commonwealth violated discovery rules or due process by failing to disclose a material witness.
  6. Whether the trial court erred by denying Wright's motion for a continuance.

Holdings

  1. The trial court erred by instructing the jury that it could find the domestic-violence element based on Wright and Covington having shared living quarters, without requiring the jury to determine whether they were members of an unmarried couple as defined by statute. Because the instruction omitted a statutory element and the error was prejudicial, Wright's first-degree fleeing-or-evading and first-degree PFO convictions and sentences were reversed and remanded for retrial.
  2. The trial court erred by imposing $600 in criminal fines after determining that Wright was indigent under KRS Chapter 31. The fines imposed for fourth-degree assault and possession of marijuana were vacated, while the convictions and other portions of the sentences were affirmed.
  3. The trial court properly denied the motion for a directed verdict because, viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the Commonwealth, it would not have been clearly unreasonable for a jury to find Wright guilty.

Key quotations

Having reviewed the instructions, we hold that the trial court erred when it did not conform its instructions to the applicable statutory provisions. (747)
Absent a finding that the participants in an alleged domestic altercation were an unmarried couple, mere roommates could be charged with having domestically abused one another. (748)
Because the jury was not properly instructed as to the domestic violence element (in that the trial court failed to include a definition of an “unmarried couple”) we find the trial court’s error to be prejudicial. (749)
Because the trial court found Appellant to be indigent under KRS Chapter 31, it erred when it included fines in its sentencing order. (751)

Factual background

Wright and Lawanna Covington had dated and allegedly lived together. After an argument escalated into a physical altercation, Covington and another witness called 911, and Covington identified Wright to Officer Brady Buemi as her assailant. Buemi ordered Wright to stop, but Wright continued into an apartment building and exited through the back; he was later found hiding nearby with Covington's cell phone and a bag of marijuana.

Procedural history

A Campbell County grand jury indicted Wright on the charged offenses. A jury found him guilty and recommended a total sentence of twenty years' imprisonment and $600 in fines, which the trial court adopted. The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed the fleeing-or-evading and first-degree PFO convictions and sentences, vacated the fines imposed for fourth-degree assault and possession of marijuana, and otherwise affirmed the remaining convictions and sentences.

Remand instructions

The Campbell Circuit Court must conduct further proceedings, including retrial of the first-degree fleeing-or-evading and first-degree PFO charges, using instructions that conform to the statutory language and require the jury to determine whether Wright and Covington were members of an unmarried couple. The fines imposed for fourth-degree assault and possession of marijuana are vacated; those convictions and the remaining portions of those sentences are affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…