Huffman v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 13 June 2019 |
| Docket Number | 2018-SC-000088-MR |
| Parties | JAMES R. HUFFMAN, IV APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION
THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER, UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS, RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE ACTION.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ON APPEAL FROM LETCHER CIRCUIT COURT
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
James Huffman appeals his conviction following a jury trial in the Letcher Circuit Court. He was convicted of one count of complicity to commit murder, three counts of attempted murder, and one count of criminal mischief. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Huffman asserts the following errors on appeal: (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion for change of venue; (2) the trial court should have struck three of the jury pool members for cause; (3) the jury pool did not represent a fair cross-section of the community; (4) the trial court erred by denying his motion to compel the presence of an out-of-state witness; (5) the trial court erred by denying his motion for a directed verdict on two of the attempted murder counts; and (6) the trial court erred by denying theadmission of testimony by an expert witness. Based on the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
The victims in this case are Michael Hogg, Christopher Puckett, Stacy Phillips, and Samantha Mullins. James Huffman and Patrick Smith were together on the night in question when they encountered the victims in Whitesburg. These two groups did not know each other prior to the events in this case. Smith was tried separately and is not subject to this appeal.
Huffman has asserted two sufficiency of the evidence claims, therefore an in-depth recitation of the facts is warranted. This case involves the tragic events of New Year's Eve into New Year's Day of 2014. Hogg, Puckett, Phillips, and Mullins made plans to go out to celebrate the new year. Before going out, Hogg and Phillips went to a liquor store and bought a case of beer and a bottle of liquor. They later met up with Puckett and Mullins, and Ms. Mullins was their designated driver for the evening. The four all gathered at the home of another friend, Morgan Wilson. The case of beer and bottle of liquor were put into the back of Hogg's Jeep Grand Cherokee, the vehicle Ms. Mullins would be chauffeuring them in that night. Then Hogg, Puckett, Phillips, Mullins, and Wilson went to StreetSide, a Whitesburg bar and grill.
A little after midnight, Hogg told Mullins and Wilson to get the Jeep so they could all leave. The Jeep was parked across the street in the parking lotof another bar, Summit City.1 Mullins was in the driver's seat, and Wilson was in the back seat on the driver's side. Wilson was intoxicated so Mullins wanted her to lie down. Mullins started the car but could not leave right away because other cars were blocking her.
While they were waiting for the other cars to move, two men Mullins did not know came up to her window. These men were later identified as James Huffman and Patrick Smith. They asked if they could get into the vehicle for a minute. Before Mullins could respond, Huffman and Smith went to the passenger side of the Jeep and got in. Smith was in the front seat, and Huffman was in the back on the passenger side. This made Mullins uneasy. But she testified that Smith was friendly and she did not know what else to do other than converse with them. They asked several times if Mullins and Wilson wanted to leave with them, and Mullins repeatedly said no.
During the time Huffman and Smith were in the Jeep with the women, their designated driver, Matthew Blackburn, periodically came up to the Jeep trying to get Huffman and Smith to leave with him. The final time Blackburn came up to the Jeep he threatened to leave Huffman and Smith there without a ride. At this point Huffman and Smith got out of the Jeep, and Mullins picked up her group of friends from StreetSide. Mullins and her friends then returned to Wilson's apartment.
When they got back to Wilson's apartment, Hogg realized his bottle of liquor was missing from the Jeep. The group assumed Huffman must have taken it, as he and Smith were the only other people in the Jeep that night. So, Hogg got Mullins to drive himself, Puckett, and Phillips back to StreetSide so they could try to get the bottle of liquor back from Huffman. Mullins dropped the trio off in front of StreetSide. She then took the Jeep behind StreetSide to its parking lot, where she waited for her friends.
When Hogg, Puckett, and Phillips found Huffman inside and asked him about the bottle, he claimed Blackburn had taken it. But Blackburn was gone and left Huffman and Smith there. Huffman offered to call Blackburn to see if he would bring the bottle back. Several witnesses testified this interaction between the parties was cordial and not threatening in any way.
While Huffman was on the phone trying to contact Blackburn, Huffman, Smith, Hogg, Puckett, and Phillips left the bar and went to the parking lot where Mullins was parked. At some point, Huffman got off the phone, walked over to a rock wall behind the Jeep, and bent down to pick up an object. Huffman then stood up and started walking quickly towards Hogg. Seeing this, Puckett stepped between Huffman and Hogg and was stabbed in the back by Huffman. Upset by this, Hogg tackled Huffman and the two ended up rolling around on the ground fighting. During this scuffle Huffman stabbed Hogg several times. Phillips tried to intervene by either blocking the knife orgrabbing the knife,2 and was cut on his left hand. Phillips was eventually able to get Huffman off Hogg. Then, Phillips, Puckett, and Hogg got into the Jeep and locked the doors. Mullins stayed in the Jeep during the entire altercation.
When they got back into the Jeep, Huffman and Smith had followed them and began beating angrily on the sides of the Jeep and slashed its tires. This was when they realized Smith also had a knife. Mullins quickly pulled out of the parking lot, and Huffman and Smith pursued them on foot. Mullins tried to drive to the hospital but was unable to due to the Jeep's flat tires. Instead, she pulled the Jeep into another parking lot and called 911.
By the time an ambulance got there, Hogg was no longer breathing and was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. Puckett's wound was deemed life-threatening, and he was air lifted to another hospital where he later made a full recovery. Phillips' hand was treated, and he was released from the hospital the same day. Mullins was physically unharmed. Huffman received a life sentence for complicity to commit the murder of Hogg; twenty years for the attempted murder of Puckett; ten years for the attempted murder of Phillips; ten years for the attempted murder of Mullins; and five years for criminal mischief. This appeal followed.
Huffman's first argument on appeal is that the trial court committed reversible error by denying his motion to change the venue of the trial. He asserts that the media coverage of the case prior to the trial was pervasive and highly prejudicial, which entitled him to a change of venue.
This issue was properly preserved under KRS3 452.220,4 we therefore review the trial court's denial of the motion for abuse of discretion. Gill v. Commonwealth, 7 S.W.3d 365, 369 (Ky. 1999). The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge's decision "was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles." Welch v. Commonwealth, 563 S.W.3d 612, 615 (Ky. 2018).
The standard for granting a change of venue is found is KRS 452.210:
When a criminal or penal action is pending in any Circuit Court, the judge thereof shall, upon the application of the defendant or of the state, order the trial to be held in some adjacent county to which there is no valid objection, if it appears that the defendant or the state cannot have a fair trial in the county where the prosecution is pending. If the judge is satisfied that a fair trial cannot be had in an adjacent county, he may order the trial to be had in the most convenient county in which a fair trial can be had.
(emphasis added). "In cases alleged to be affected by prejudicial news coverage...the defendant must show that (1) there has been prejudicial news coverage, (2) it occurred prior to trial, and (3) the effect of such news coverage is reasonably likely to prevent a fair trial.'" Sluss v. Commonwealth, 450 S.W.3d 279, 285-86 (Ky. 2014). However, "a showing of actual prejudice is unnecessary if the procedure involves such a probability that prejudice will result that it is deemed inherently lacking in due process," and "prejudice must be shown unless it may be clearly implied in a case from the totality of the circumstances." Brewster v. Commonwealth, 568 S.W.2d 232, 235 (Ky. 1978).
After a thorough review of our case law, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion to change venue based on pre-trial publicity appears to be the exception rather than the rule. See, e.g., Hilton v. Commonwealth, 539 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Ky. 2018); Sluss v. Commonwealth, 450 S.W.3d 279, 286 (Ky. 2014); Wood v. Commonwealth, 178 S.W.3d 500, 514 (Ky. 2005); Fugate...
To continue reading
Request your trial