James v. Commonwealth
| Docket Number | 2022-SC-0299-MR |
| Decision Date | 26 October 2023 |
| Parties | PAUL W. JAMES APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
ON APPEAL FROM GRANT CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE REBECCA LESLIE KNIGHT, JUDGE NOS. 18-CR-00177 &18-CR-00197
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Daniel J. Cameron
Attorney General of Kentucky
Thomas A. Van De Rostyne
Assistant Attorney General
OPINIONPaul W. James shot and killed Barry Kenner and was subsequently convicted by a Grant Circuit Court jury of murder and tampering with a witness. James was sentenced to life in prison consistent with the jury's recommendation and he now appeals as a matter of right. After review, we affirm the judgment.
According to the Appellant, Paul W. James, there was longstanding animosity between the James family and their neighbor, Barry Kenner. In July 2018, Daniel, James's younger brother, went missing. Daniel, who struggled with addiction, was last seen wandering away from the family home with a bottle of pills. Tragically, Daniel's body was later discovered in a lake adjacent to the James and Kenner properties. Authorities believed he died from an overdose before his body slid down an embankment and into the water. However, the James family believed there was foul play and insisted that police investigate Kenner.
Shortly after 6:00 p.m. on August 18, 2018, Kenner called 911 and told the dispatcher James shot him. Kenner also called his neighbor and reported that James shot him in the neck and asked for help. In a police interview after the shooting, James said that Kenner confronted him on the roadway and accused him of previously having tried to run him and a nephew down on his ATV. According to James, Kenner grabbed his left arm through his driver's side window and threatened to kill him. James explained that he then grabbed his gun and fired it. He conceded that he did not see Kenner with a weapon, Kenner was not trying to get in James's truck or pull him out of it, and after shooting Kenner he drove away from the scene. At 6:06 p.m., James called Deputy Scott Conrad and told him that he shot Kenner. Kenner was transported to the hospital and ultimately died from his injuries.
Other trial testimony indicated that Scott James, James's brother, messaged James on August 9, 2018, and alleged that Kenner and another individual killed Daniel. James replied, "We will get them love y'all." One witness testified that James told him Kenner and another individual killed his brother and that "these people are gonna pay." Additionally, a witness testified that James met her on the day of the murder to sell her pain pills. During the transaction, James told her that he believed two people were present when Daniel was murdered and that one of them lived a few houses down from his parents' home. James told the witness that "as soon as he seen this guy, he was going to kill him."
On August 21, 2018, James called his brother Scott from the detention center and encouraged Scott to tell the police and court that he was on the phone with James at the time of the shooting and heard Kenner say, "I'll kill you motherfucker." James said, "you heard it" and "if you're in court, you're going to tell the Judge you heard it, you know what I mean." At trial, Scott testified that he initially told police he was on the phone with James and heard Kenner threaten James just before the shooting. However, Scott later contacted police, recanted this statement, and admitted he was not on the phone with James at the time of the shooting. Rather, Scott stated that James called him immediately after he shot Kenner.
DNA evidence established that blood found on the side of James's truck belonged to Kenner, and none of James's DNA was found under Kenner's fingernails. Officers located the gun used to shoot Kenner in James's truck. Other evidence collected by the police confirmed the shooting occurred in the roadway in front of Kenner's property. After Kenner was shot in the left side of the face, he managed to travel approximately sixty yards back to his residence, obtain his house phone, and go back into the front yard before collapsing. Law enforcement officers also testified that in police interviews, James exhibited a cold demeanor and did not act "appropriately distraught."
During deliberations, the jury asked the judge if they needed to be unanimous on all counts. After discussing how to proceed with counsel, the trial court explained to the jury to return a guilty verdict, the jury had to be unanimous. The jury continued deliberating and after another hour, it returned guilty verdicts on murder, first-degree manslaughter, second-degree manslaughter, reckless homicide, and tampering with a witness. James's counsel moved for a mistrial. Outside the presence of the jury, the trial court conducted a hearing with counsel. James argued that the verdict was not unanimous, while the Commonwealth characterized the situation as a clerical error and mere confusion of the jury.
The trial court denied James's motion for a mistrial and brought the jury back into the court room. The trial court gave a thorough explanation of the instructions and sent the jury back to deliberate with a clean copy of the original instructions. The jury returned guilty verdicts on murder and tampering with a witness and recommended sentences of life imprisonment and five years, respectively, to run concurrently. The trial court imposed a life sentence consistent with the jury's recommendation. James now appeals as a matter of right.
On appeal, James argues that (1) he was denied a unanimous verdict because the jury fundamentally misunderstood the trial court's instructions; (2) improper opinion testimony from two law enforcement officials rendered the trial fundamentally unfair; (3) inaccurate testimony regarding parole eligibility and meritorious good time credit rendered the sentencing phase unfair, and (4) the Commonwealth presented an improper closing argument. We address each argument in turn.
James argues that the jury instructions for murder and the lesser included offenses violated his right to a unanimous jury, and therefore the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial. At trial, the jury was given instructions on murder and the lesser-included offenses of first-degree manslaughter, second-degree manslaughter, and reckless homicide. During deliberations, the jury sent the following question to the trial court: It is important to note that the instructions had the appropriate and standard language at the end of the murder instruction and at the beginning of each subsequent lesser-included offense instruction that clearly directed the jury how to proceed through each instruction and verdict form.
The trial court and counsel discussed the appropriate course of action. The trial court posited that the jury might be misunderstanding the instructions. Ultimately the trial court decided to bring the jury back in and asked the foreperson to ask the question again:
The trial court sent the jury back into deliberations. One hour later, the jury returned guilty verdicts for murder, first-degree manslaughter, second-degree manslaughter, and reckless homicide in addition to a guilty verdict for tampering with a witness.
Outside the presence of the jury, the trial court conducted a brief hearing with counsel. The Commonwealth asked that the jury be polled given its clear confusion in rendering verdicts. James moved for a mistrial and objected to polling the jury, stating it would be improper to question the jury about its deliberations. The trial judge denied James's motion for a mistrial and brought the jury back into the court room.
In the presence of the jury, the trial judge acknowledged that she might not have fully understood the foreperson's question and therefore her answer may not have been helpful. The judge referenced the jury instructions and instructed the jury to pay attention to verdict form one. She explained to choose only one - not guilty or guilty, which the jury did - but to notice in bold print the portion that states "[i]f you found James guilty of murder, please proceed to verdict form number five." The judge explained:
I think, in hindsight, what you were asking me is, do you have to go on and find the others. And the answer is if you found him guilty, you would proceed to number five, thereby skipping two, three, and four. If you had found him not guilty of murder, please proceed to verdict form number two. If you go to two, read that instruction as well. I want to make sure you understand that.......
To continue reading
Request your trial