Date: 02-19-2016

Case Style: DANNY JOE KEITH V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

Case Number: 2014-SC-000568

Judge: Samuel T. Wright III

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Plaintiff's Attorney: Andy Beshear, Gregory C. Fuchs

Defendant's Attorney: Susan Jackson Balliet

Description: Keith has a long history of substance abuse that has placed him in
prison for most of his adult life. At age 19, he was convicted of driving on a
suspended license after his third DUI. At age 23, he was sentenced to 40
years' imprisonment for wanton vehicular murder. He had served 18 years of
that sentence and was set to meet the parole board when the events leading up
to this case occurred inside the correctional facility.
During his inspection rounds one night, the guard noticed Keith's
cellmate keeping watch from their cell door. This aroused the guard's
suspicion, so he approached the cell to investigate. He saw Keith standing at
his bunk fiddling with an object he described as a TV converter box, which
Keith claimed was short circuiting. Based on Keith and the cellmate's
behavior, the guard suspected something else was going on. So the guard
popped open the converter box and discovered marijuana and six pills, which
were later identified as Alprazolam. He handcuffed Keith and the cellmate and
segregated them while he completed his investigation.
2
Following an inventory search of Keith's locker, the guard found a
homemade jewelry box that appeared to have a false bottom. Eventually,
guards opened the box and discovered a list of nicknames and numbers, which
one of the guards identified as a "debt slip"—a common method inmates
employ to disguise their identities. The box also contained a quantity of orange
strips, later identified as Suboxone.
Keith was charged and convicted of first-degree promoting contraband
from the contents of the converter box, and second-degree trafficking in a
controlled substance based on the contents of the jewelry box.
II. ANALYSIS.
A. Keith was Denied a Unanimous Jury Verdict.
Keith contends that the trial court erred in its jury instruction for first
degree promoting contraband. The instruction told the jury to convict Keith if
it found him guilty of possessing either marijuana or Alprazolam. Use of the
disjunctive "or" in the instruction did not require the jury to decide
unanimously which particular drug he was guilty of possessing.
This issue was not preserved for review at trial, but Keith requests review
for palpable error.2 To be sure, in Kentucky, the right to a unanimous verdict
is a cornerstone notion of due process of law, and a violation of this principle
2 See Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 10.26 ("A palpable error which affects the substantial rights of a party may be considered by the court on motion for a new trial or by an appellate court on appeal, even though insufficiently preserved for review, and appropriate relief may be granted upon a determination that manifest injustice has resulted from the error.").
3
requires reversal regardless of preservation. 3 Because this error offends Keith's
right to due process of law and a fair trial, and because the Commonwealth
concedes error on this issue, we reverse his conviction for first-degree
promoting contraband.
This Court has clearly established that Section 7 of the Kentucky
Constitution requires a unanimous verdict by a twelve-member jury in all
criminal cases.4 Kentucky departs from Supreme Court case law and offers
greater protections for criminal defendants than the requirements of the Sixth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution. 5 Keith's claim
essentially rests on whether the instruction allowing the jury to convict him if
they found him in possession of either marijuana or Alprazolam violates the
unanimity requirement that our Constitution extends above what the Supreme
Court considers constitutionally sufficient.
In Johnson v. Commonwealth, we held that duplicitous counts "whether
appearing in an indictment or jury instructions, [present] multiple
constitutional problems, including that the jury verdict is not unanimous." 6
These principles apply with "equal force" when it is a jury instruction for a
single count that covers two different instances of the crime.? Likewise, in
Martin v. Commonwealth, we held that a unanimous-verdict violation occurs
when a single jury instruction may be satisfied by multiple criminal acts by the
defendant. 8 This Court has taken a strong position on the unanimity
requirement, and we see no reason to depart from that in this case. Indeed, the
Commonwealth concedes that the verdict below does not comport to the
standards we outlined in Martin, and the conviction should be reversed on
those grounds. The Commonwealth asks us to render our opinion consistent
with Martin to make our unanimous-verdict rule even clearer for future
litigation. The only remaining question is whether we agree that this is in fact
a Martin issue.
To us, the first-degree promoting-contraband instruction is clearly
analogous to the single-instruction-satisfied-by-multiple-acts scenario we held
unconstitutional in Martin. This is underscored by our recent requirement that
a defendant's right to a unanimous verdict requires the trial court to use jury
instructions that direct the jury to consider a specific, uniquely identifiable
event.9 Simply put, Keith is entitled to an instruction requiring jurors to
definitively state which drug he was guilty of possessing, and he was denied
that instruction below.
Because this clear violation of our state constitution amounts to palpable
error, we reverse Keith's conviction of this charge and remand to the Circuit
Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
8 456 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2015). See also Ruiz v. Commonwealth, 471 S.W.3d 675 (Ky. 2015).
9 Ruiz, 471 S.W.3d at 678.
5
Keith does not dispute his conviction on the second count—second
degree trafficking of a controlled substance. So this ruling does not impact the
jury's conviction for this offense. But Keith's other claim of error in this case
alleges prosecutorial misconduct in the closing argument of the combined PFO
and sentencing phase of his trial. Because we affirm his trafficking conviction,
we must review the alleged error in sentencing—but only in relation to his
sentence for trafficking and PFO offenses.
B. Keith was not Entitled to a Mistrial Because of the Commonwealth's Statements During the Sentencing Phase of his Trial.
Keith's second claim of error focuses on the Commonwealth's Attorney's
characterization of Kentucky's PFO law during closing arguments of the
combined PFO and sentencing phase of his trial. More specifically, Keith
primarily takes issue with the Commonwealth's comparison of the PFO law to a
"three-strike" rule. The Commonwealth's exact language in closing arguments
is as follows:
I told you earlier Kentucky does not have a "three strike." But this is truly a three strike situation for an individual of the conviction felonies he had. I further say you ought to consider the fact this isn't even someone that served his time, got out and... then committed another offense. He hasn't even got out of the penitentiary.
Keith's ensuing objection argued that the "three strikes" analogy "effectively
informed the jury that [Keith] deserved more punishment than the 20 years
Kentucky laws allows" and that the Commonwealth's characterization
"exceeded a reasonable argument." The trial court overruled his objection,
6
denied a defense motion for a mistrial, and gave the jury no admonition. This
appeal followed.
We typically only reverse for prosecutorial misconduct "if the [conduct]
was so improper, prejudicial, and egregious as to have undermined the overall
fairness of the proceedings." 10 There are two ways a criminal defendant may
succeed should we identify the statement during closing arguments as error.
First, if the misconduct is flagrant, a defendant is entitled to reversa1. 11 The
second way requires satisfaction of each of the following: (1) that proof of the
defendant's guilt is not overwhelming; (2) defense counsel objected; and (3) the
trial court failed to cure the error with sufficient admonishment. 12
In evaluating Keith's claim, we must consider the argument as a whole,
while keeping mind that we afford parties "wide latitude" in making closing
arguments. 13 With this standard firmly in place, the Commonwealth's
characterization of the Kentucky PFO law was not so prejudicial to mandate
setting aside his ten-year sentence.
Keith primarily contends that the alleged error in the Commonwealth's
argument is that it created an inference for the jury that Keith's maximum
sentence was not severe enough. This, if true, could perhaps be an inference
1° Brewer v. Commonwealth, 206 S.W.3d 343, 349 (Ky. 2006).
11 See Barnes v. Commonwealth, 91 S.W.3d 564, 568 (Ky. 2002).
12 Id.
13 Miller v. Commonwealth, 283 S.W.3d 690, 704 (Ky. 2009) (quoting Young v. Commonwealth, 25 S.W.3d 66, 74-75 (Ky. 2000)).
7
beyond the wide latitude we allow attorneys in making closing arguments. 14
This claim is supposedly bolstered by the fact that the jury, during
deliberations, asked if it could sentence Keith to 20 years for each count, as
opposed to the 20-year maximum sentence for PFO I. But ultimately, the
Commonwealth's comparison, while perhaps inartful, did not render the
penalty phase of Keith's trial fundamentally unfair.
The Commonwealth's Attorney is certainly free to recommend a sentence
within the parameters of Kentucky law. Instead of an attempt to suggest Keith
deserves a penalty above the statutory maximum, we view the characterization
more fittingly as a response to Keith's counsel's plea for a lighter sentence
during his own argument. The Commonwealth here seems to simply be
rebutting Keith's own appeal to the jury's sympathy by highlighting the
importance of a strong sentence for persistent felons. The trial court did not
err in denying Keith's request for a mistrial on the sole basis of this line in the
Commonwealth's closing argument.
Whatever influence that may be ascribed to the Commonwealth's
analogy, we cannot say the statement was misconduct per se. Though it was
neither a deft nor skillful characterization, to be sure, we are unconvinced that
14 See Medley v. Commonwealth, 704 S.W.2d 190, 191 (Ky. 1985). This case prohibited defense counsel from suggesting a "not guilty" verdict on a PFO charge because it deemed the minimum penalty too severe. Keith contends that the inverse is true in this case; the Commonwealth may not suggest the statutory-maximum sentence is too light. While this could potentially be true as an abuse of the state's prosecutorial authority to inappropriately influence a jury, it ignores the true legal issue in Medley: juror nullification. Counsel in Medley essentially asked the jury to ignore the requirements of the law—a far more dubious charge than in the present case. The Commonwealth here employed imagery to invoke a harsher punishment, no doubt, but still one within the parameters of the PFO I statute.
8
the statement—taken either in isolation or in the broader context of the
argument as a whole—is such obvious harm to represent a flagrant or
intentional act of prosecutorial misconduct. Even if we were to consider the
analogy as error, evidence of Keith's guilt as a PFO I is overwhelming—he was
in prison when the committed the offense. Within the context of the argument
as a whole, we simply cannot say the comparison between Kentucky's PFO
sentencing statute and a "three strike" rule exceeded reasonability and
undermined the overall fairness of the sentencing phase of the trial. We must
accordingly affirm Keith's ten-year sentence for second-degree trafficking in a
controlled substance, enhanced as a PFO I.

Outcome: The lack of the guarantee of unanimity in Keith's possession-charge
conviction rendered his trial on that charge fundamentally unfair, in violation
of Section 7 of the Kentucky Constitution. We reverse his conviction on this
count, but we affirm the remaining conviction for second-degree trafficking a
controlled substance enhanced to a ten-year sentence as a PFO I. The case is
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: