Haight v. Com.

• Decision Date: 21 November 1996
• Docket Number: No. 94-SC-288-MR,94-SC-288-MR
• Citation: 938 S.W.2d 243
• Parties: Randy Winton HAIGHT, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

Page 243

938 S.W.2d 243

Randy Winton HAIGHT, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

No. 94-SC-288-MR.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Nov. 21, 1996.

Rehearing Denied March 3, 1997.

Allison Connelly, Public Advocate, Edward C. Monahan, Bobby C. Simpson, Assistant Public Advocates, Frankfort, for Appellant.

A.B. Chandler III, Attorney General, Kent T. Young, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Appellate Division, Frankfort, for Appellee.

LAMBERT, Justice.

This appeal is from the final judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court whereby appellant was sentenced to death for having murdered Patricia Vance and David Omer. He was also sentenced to concurrent terms of twenty years imprisonment for two counts of robbery in the first degree and five years imprisonment for possession of a handgun by a convicted felon.

There is no doubt that appellant committed the acts for which he has been held criminally responsible. Rather, upon numerous asserted grounds ranging from deprivation and mistreatment as a child to arbitrary application of the law, appellant claims exemption from the death penalty.

Some of appellant's contentions require thoughtful analysis while others merely urge reconsideration of settled law or are manifestly without merit. Some such issues will be addressed only briefly or not at all. Stanford v. Commonwealth, Ky., 734 S.W.2d 781, 792-93 (1987).

This is the third opinion from this Court reviewing judgments and orders arising out of these crimes. In Haight v. Commonwealth, Ky., 760 S.W.2d 84 (1988), appellant obtained reversal of his original death sentence on grounds that actions of the trial court had misled him into believing that there was a commitment from the court to impose a sentence other than death. Thereafter appellant came before this Court seeking an extraordinary writ to require enforcement of the original plea agreement and to prevent any effort to secure the death penalty on grounds that such would amount to prosecutorial vindictiveness. Haight v. Williamson, Ky., 833 S.W.2d 821 (1992). We denied appellant's claims in this regard and other matters upon which he sought review were not addressed. As a result of our decisions arising out of appellant's previous appearances here, the law of the case doctrine will have substantial application. Such matters as have been considered and resolved in the prior cases will not be modified in this proceeding.

A final decision of this Court, whether right or wrong, is the law of the case and is conclusive of the questions therein resolved. It is binding upon the parties, the trial court, and the Court of Appeals. It may not be reconsidered by prosecuting an appeal from a judgment entered in conformity therewith.

Williamson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 767 S.W.2d 323, 325 (1989) (quoting Martin v. Frasure, Ky., 352 S.W.2d 817, 818 (1961)).

The essential facts are that after having escaped from the Johnson County Jail, in the course of committing first degree robbery, appellant inflicted multiple gunshot wounds upon the victims and thereby caused them to die. After a change of venue from Garrard County to Jefferson County, appellant was tried, convicted and sentenced to death and terms of imprisonment as aforesaid. Such additional facts as may be necessary will be presented in the discussion of each claim of error.

Appellant claims entitlement to a new trial on grounds that juror Helton engaged in misconduct by failing to make full disclosure during voir dire, by prematurely deciding contested issues, and by possibly furnishing proscribed information to other jurors. This claim arises from the fact that prospective juror Helton read a newspaper article concerning the case prior to reporting for jury duty. According to his testimony, this juror scanned the article but did not remember the headline which revealed that appellant had been previously sentenced to death.

Initially it should be observed that during voir dire the prospective juror acknowledged that he had seen the article, recalled the names of the victims, and indicated that he had little recollection otherwise about what was contained in the article and in the headline. In addition, this prospective juror indicated an independence of thought and a determination to fairly try the case. No motion was made to exclude the juror for cause and no peremptory challenge was used to remove him. He was seated and participated in the verdict.

In response to appellant's motion for a new trial, the trial court held a hearing relating to this juror and allegations that he had withheld critical information. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court rendered findings of fact which are not clearly erroneous and which reveal no abuse of discretion. Parsley v. Commonwealth, Ky., 321 S.W.2d 259 (1959); Johnson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 892 S.W.2d 558 (1995); and Combs v. Commonwealth, Ky., 356 S.W.2d 761 (1962). We deem it appropriate to quote the trial court at length:

As to juror Helton, the court finds specifically that juror Helton answered questions truthfully both on voir dire and at the March 7th hearing when he was called subsequent to the jurors' verdict. A finding that he answered questions truthfully leads the court to the conclusion that that evidence certainly is credible. The juror says: I had scanned the article. I do not remember the headline ...

This is voir dire examination: I do not remember the headline. I do not remember the details except that two people--there were two murders and some robberies and I remember the names Omer and Vance as being the names of the parties involved.

The court has no reason to believe that at that time Mr. Helton recalled anything else. He says that as the trial progressed, ... some of the article came back to him. I don't find that to be extraordinary in human experience that a repetition of some matters may cause us to remember other things by association. I'm glad that's true; otherwise, I wouldn't remember anybody's name, particularly at this stage in my life. With that in mind, I specifically find that Mr. Helton's testimony is credible. He did not display a bias, and for that reason overrule that portion of the motion for a new trial dealing with that testimony. There was no deliberate concealment on his part of information which would compel this court to reach a conclusion that he was partial.

We can hardly conceive of a circumstance in which greater deference should be granted to the findings of the trial court. It is appropriate to recall that the trial judge personally conducted much of the voir dire examination and presided over all of it. He presided over the trial and likewise presided over the post-trial hearing on the motion for new trial. The trial judge was immersed in the case and it would be utterly extraordinary for an appellate court to disregard his view as to questions of candor and impartiality of a juror. Riley v. Commonwealth, Ky., 271 S.W.2d 882 (1954).

On this point we accept the view expressed in United States v. Klee, 494 F.2d 394 (9th Cir.1974) (citing United States v. Goliday, 468 F.2d 170, 171 (9th Cir.1972)), that "[w]hen a wise and experienced judge, who presided at the trial and observed the jury, comes to such a conclusion, it is not for us to upset it. The trial judge 'was in a better position than we are to determine whether what happened was prejudicial.' " See also McQueen v. Commonwealth, Ky., 721 S.W.2d 694, 698 (1986). Our decision in Byrd v. Commonwealth, Ky., 825 S.W.2d 272 (1992), stands for the proposition that exposure to newspaper accounts of trials in progress does not automatically require reversal. "It was not reversible error for the trial judge to deny Byrd's motion for a mistrial because not every incident of juror misconduct requires a new trial. The true test is whether the misconduct has prejudiced the defendant to the extent that he has not received a fair trial." Id. at 274-75. Numerous other cases hold that in ruling on motions of this type, great deference should be given to the views of the trial court.

This case is a far cry from Paenitz v. Commonwealth, Ky., 820 S.W.2d 480 (1991), in which a prospective juror withheld the information that she had talked with a key witness for the Commonwealth about the case. This case also differs from Randolph v. Commonwealth, Ky., 716 S.W.2d 253 (1986), where the juror failed to reveal that she was employed by the Commonwealth's Attorney and where we held that despite the disclaimer of bias, implied bias was shown by virtue of the relationship. There was no such error in the trial court's ruling with respect to juror Helton.

We have examined appellant's contentions with respect to juror Nichols and find them to be insubstantial. The transcript reveals no misunderstanding concerning the death of the police officer or disclosure to other jurors. This juror was given enough information during voir dire to have led to a mistaken belief on her part. Her post-trial testimony is without any hint of dishonesty.

As to juror Gaugh, much is made of his apparent knowledge that a police officer had been killed when, in fact, he was properly informed only that a police officer had been fired upon. We are told that this is more than enough to compel the inference that Gaugh concealed vital information. As the evidence in this regard was ambiguous, as it is likewise with respect to each of these jurors, we will rely upon the trial court for the reasons stated hereinabove and as follows: "It is pretty clear that they [the questioned jurors] had no information which would cause the court to believe that they were in any way partial in their deliberations or their final conclusions."

Appellant also claims a violation of RCr 9.36 and the doctrine of randomness of jury selection in the manner of selecting the jury and alternates who tried the case. After challenges for cause and peremptory challenges had been exercised, there remained seventeen prospective...