Lincoln v. Commonwealth
| Docket Number | 2021-SC-0033-MR |
| Decision Date | 18 August 2022 |
| Parties | KENDALL D. LINCOLN APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Daniel Cameron
Attorney General of Kentucky
Perry T. Ryan
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Solicitor General
MEMORANDUM OPINIONAs a matter of right,[1] Kendall D. Lincoln appeals the judgment reflecting his convictions for murder, first-degree robbery, and of being a convicted felon in possession of a handgun. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment.
While visiting his grandmother in Hardin County, Lincoln posted on Snapchat a picture of himself with marijuana as an advertisement to potential buyers. Cornelius Tory replied. Tory offered to trade Lincoln three bottles of promethazine in exchange for one ounce of marijuana. The men agreed to make the exchange in the parking lot of the Radcliff Wal-Mart.
Lincoln rode with his friend Ladarius Archie and Archie's girlfriend, who were headed to Wal-Mart to get food. After waiting in the Wal-Mart parking lot for some time, Tory flashed the lights of his car at the SUV driven by Archie. Archie drove toward Tory's vehicle and parked on the passenger side of Tory's car.
Lincoln exited Archie's SUV and approached the passenger side of Tory's car. A few seconds later, Lincoln fatally shot Tory. Lincoln then grabbed items from Tory's car and returned to Archie's SUV. Archie then drove Lincoln to the home of R.J. Mooring, a friend of Lincoln's. After learning what had happened, Mooring called Jalen Pendleton and asked Pendleton to take Lincoln to a motel.
The next day, Mooring and his father visited the Radcliff police department. Mooring identified Lincoln as the shooter responsible for Tory's death. Kentucky State Police attempted to locate Lincoln at his grandmother's home. While surveilling her home, officers observed Lincoln enter a car. The police performed an interdiction stop and discovered that Lincoln's uncle drove the car and Lincoln was a passenger.
The police arrested Lincoln. At first, police told Lincoln that he was being arrested for an outstanding warrant on an unrelated charge. During an interview with Det. Levi Mattingly, Lincoln first denied any knowledge of the shooting in the Wal-Mart parking lot. After Det. Mattingly confronted Lincoln about security-camera footage from the Wal-Mart parking lot, Lincoln admitted that he met Tory at the Wal-Mart parking lot to exchange drugs. Lincoln claimed that he shot Tory in self-defense.
At trial, the Commonwealth posited that Lincoln intended to rob and murder Tory all along. In support of this theory, the Commonwealth was permitted to introduce evidence under Kentucky Rule of Evidence (KRE) 404(b) indicating that, during the same week as the underlying offense, Lincoln obtained eight ounces of marijuana by robbing an unrelated individual. Essentially, the Commonwealth theorized that Lincoln engaged in a pattern and practice of robbing individuals to obtain drugs.
Lincoln maintained his defense of self-defense, arguing that he feared for his life because Tory pointed a handgun at him during the drug exchange.
The jury convicted Lincoln on all charges. Now, Lincoln makes several assertions of trial-court error. He urges reversal and remand for a new trial. We consider each assertion of error below.
KRE 404(b)(1) makes evidence of prior crimes, wrongs, or acts inadmissible to show the character of a person or action in conformity therewith. But prior-bad-acts evidence may be offered "for some other purpose, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident."[2] We review a trial court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.[3] "The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge's decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles."[4]
"[T]rial courts must apply KRE 404(b) cautiously, with an eye towards eliminating evidence which is relevant only as proof of an accused's propensity to commit a certain type of crime."[5] "To determine whether evidence of prior bad acts is admissible, we must decide if the evidence is relevant 'for some purpose other than to prove the criminal disposition of the accused[,]' probative as to the actual commission of the prior bad act, and not overly prejudicial under KRE 403."[6]
The Commonwealth filed a notice of intent to introduce evidence under KRE 404(c). Specifically, the Commonwealth planned to introduce evidence that, during the same week as the charged offense, Lincoln allegedly robbed another individual, obtaining eight ounces of marijuana. Lincoln objected. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing to evaluate the possibility of undue prejudice posed by introduction of the prior-bad-acts evidence. During the hearing, R.J. Mooring testified that he exchanged text messages with Lincoln in which Lincoln stated, "I was supposed to stain Anthony nobody else." Mooring testified that he understood the word "stain" to mean Lincoln was going to "take, rob, or steal" from Anthony. Another text from Lincoln to Mooring stated, "I do this shit and you know that." The trial court concluded that Lincoln's prior conduct was sufficiently similar to the circumstances presented in this case to be introduced as "a common scheme or plan, motive, intent, and/or absence of mistake."
At trial, R.J. Mooring testified that a few days before the Wal-Mart parking-lot shooting, Lincoln admitted that he had taken about eight ounces of marijuana from another dealer. Essentially, the Commonwealth's theory of the case was that Lincoln engaged in a scheme or plan to obtain drugs through robbery. In other words, the Commonwealth argued that Lincoln similarly planned to rob Tory to obtain drugs.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing introduction of this prior-bad-acts evidence under KRE 404(b). First, the evidence of the prior armed robbery was relevant to the Commonwealth's theory of Lincoln's motive, preparation, and plan. Second, the evidence was probative as to the commission of the prior-bad act. The Commonwealth's theory was that Lincoln engaged in a pattern and practice of obtaining drugs through robbery. The evidence demonstrates that Lincoln allegedly committed a prior robbery in which he obtained drugs. Lastly, the evidence was not substantially more prejudicial than probative under the KRE 403 balancing test. The evidence introduced by the Commonwealth was that Lincoln committed a robbery close in time to the shooting at issue in this case and that Lincoln obtained drugs in both incidents. That evidence rebuts Lincoln's assertion of self-defense and is probative of the Commonwealth's theory that Lincoln engaged in a plan or scheme to obtain drugs through robbery.
Importantly, the trial court gave two limiting instructions regarding the proper scope of 404(b) evidence. The trial court admonished the jury not to consider the prior-bad-acts evidence for any purpose except insofar as it showed a motive or intent on Lincoln's part to commit the charged offenses. We presume that jurors follow a court's admonitions.[7]
Ultimately, the prior-bad-acts evidence introduced here is directly relevant to the Commonwealth's theory concerning Lincoln's plan, preparation, and motive. And the trial court admonished the jury twice with limiting instructions regarding the proper scope of the prior-bad-acts evidence. As such, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of the prior robbery under KRE 404(b)(1).
During defense counsel's opening argument, counsel stated, "And [Lincoln] gets back in the car, and you're going to hear Ladarius Archie, and [Lincoln] says, 'He tried to up on me, he tried to rob me.'" Essentially, the defense planned on eliciting testimony from Archie on cross-examination that Lincoln told Archie that Tory tried to attack or rob him just before the shooting.
On direct examination, the Commonwealth did not ask Archie about the statement that Tory "tried to up" on Lincoln. Before the defense's cross-examination, the Commonwealth preemptively objected to the defense eliciting any testimony from Archie regarding Lincoln's statement when Lincoln returned to Archie's vehicle after shooting Tory. The Commonwealth argued that the prospective testimony did not fit into any hearsay exception. The Commonwealth also described the statement as "self-serving." In response, defense counsel stated that "Archie actually gave testimony previously that the defendant said this, that Mr. Tory 'upped' on him." Defense counsel argued that under the old rules of evidence a defendant's statement against interest could be admitted but that "any statement by the defendant is admissible" under the hearsay rules.
Outside the presence of the jury, the trial court explained that under the current rules of evidence a statement that constitutes hearsay must fit into an exception to the hearsay rule to be admitted as evidence. The trial court went on to explain that a defendant cannot introduce the defendant's own "self-serving" out-of-court statement through another witness's testimony without testifying and being subject to cross examination. The trial court concluded by saying, "The...
To continue reading
Request your trial