Noakes v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 27 October 2011
• Docket Number: No. 2010–SC–000568–MR.,2010–SC–000568–MR.
• Citation: 354 S.W.3d 116
• Parties: Sean Christopher NOAKES, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

354 S.W.3d 116

Sean Christopher NOAKES, Appellant,

v.COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

No. 2010–SC–000568–MR.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Oct. 27, 2011.

V. Gene Lewter, Department of Public Advocacy, Thomas More Ransdell, Assistant Public Advocate, Department of Public Advocacy, Frankfort, KY, Counsel for Appellant.

Jack Conway, Attorney General of Kentucky, Jason Bradley Moore, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Attorney General's Office, Frankfort, KY, Counsel for Appellee.

Opinion of the Court by Justice SCOTT.

Appellant, Sean Noakes, was convicted by a Boone Circuit Court jury of murder, attempted murder, and being a first-degree persistent felony offender. He received two life sentences for these crimes. He now appeals as a matter of right. Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b).

I. BACKGROUND

On July 9, 2008, Appellant visited his friends, Barbara Rogers and Sharon Gette, at Rogers' home.¹ Upon his arrival, Rogers invited Appellant into the house and returned to the kitchen, where she had been reading the newspaper. After smoking a cigarette with Gette, Appellant entered the kitchen to speak with Rogers. Meanwhile, Gette went to the bedroom to lie down.

Rogers was sitting at the kitchen table talking to Appellant when he suddenly, without warning, began stabbing her in the back and chest. Appellant then proceeded to the bedroom, where he repeatedly stabbed Gette. Rogers was able to call 911 while Appellant was attacking Gette. Appellant then fled, but was apprehended soon after the incident. Rogers survived; however, Gette died as a result of her injuries.

At trial, Appellant did not contest the stabbings; instead, he asserted he was not criminally responsible for his actions because he was insane at the time of the incident. Consequently, the evidence at trial focused primarily on Appellant's mental health.²

After the evidence was presented, the trial court instructed the jury on murder, first-degree manslaughter, and attempted murder. All of the instructions included qualifications which would have allowed the jury to find Appellant guilty but mentally ill or not guilty by reason of insanity. As noted above, the jury found Appellant guilty of murder and attempted murder. ³

II. ANALYSIS

On appeal, Appellant raises four allegations of error: (1) that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a directed verdict on the murder charge; (2) that the trial court erred by improperly instructing the jury on the definition of insanity; (3) that the trial court erred by improperly instructing the jury as to extreme emotional disturbance; and (4) that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct throughout the trial. Finding no cause for reversal, we affirm Appellant's convictions.

A. Directed Verdict

Appellant first argues that the trial court erred by denying his general motion for a directed verdict. Specifically, Appellant asserts that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to allow the jury to find him guilty of murder. He contends that the trial court should have directed a verdict on the question of guilt and instructed the jury solely on the question of whether he was guilty but mentally ill or not guilty by reason of insanity. Appellant acknowledges that this alleged error was not properly preserved for appeal; therefore, it is subject to palpable error review under RCr 10.26.⁴

A motion for directed verdict is appropriate “when the defendant is entitled to a complete acquittal[,] i.e., when, looking at the evidence as a whole, it would be clearly unreasonable for a jury to find the defendant guilty, under any possible theory, of any of the crimes charged in the indictment or of any lesser included offenses.” Campbell v. Commonwealth, 564 S.W.2d 528, 530–31 (Ky.1978). A motion for directed verdict is not the proper means for relief “[w]hen the evidence is insufficient to sustain the burden of proof on one or more, but less than all, of the issues presented by the case.” Kimbrough v. Commonwealth, 550 S.W.2d 525, 529 (Ky.1977) ( citing Columbia Gas of Kentucky, Inc. v. Maynard, 532 S.W.2d 3, 7 (Ky.1976)).

In the instant case, Appellant does not argue that he was entitled to a complete acquittal on the murder charge. Instead, he asserts that the evidence required the jury to find, at minimum, that he was mentally ill; therefore, the trial court should have granted him a limited directed verdict on the issue of intentional murder. However, such a limited directed verdict does not exist.

A directed verdict would have been warranted if the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to convict Appellant of any crime related to the homicide. Review of the record discloses there was clearly sufficient evidence for the jury to convict Appellant under several different theories of the crime. Appellant himself admits that the evidence could have reasonably supported a verdict of guilty but mentally ill. Because Appellant was not entitled to a complete acquittal on the murder charge, the trial court did not err by denying his motion for a directed verdict.

B. Insanity Instruction

Appellant next argues that the trial court's instruction regarding the insanity defense was erroneous. The disputed portion of the instruction provides:

A person is “insane” if as a result of mental illness, mental retardation, or other mental condition, he lacks the substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. Mental illness or retardation does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct. (Emphasis added). Appellant contends that the language limiting insanity to abnormalities other than repeated criminal or antisocial conduct should not have been included in the instruction because it was not supported by the evidence. Appellant properly preserved this issue for appellate review by objecting to the instruction. See RCr 9.54(2).⁵

It is the duty of the trial court to instruct the jury on the law of the case. RCr 9.54(1). The court's instructions must be consistent with the evidence presented at trial. Butler v. Commonwealth, 560 S.W.2d 814, 816 (Ky.1978); Pilon v. Commonwealth, 544 S.W.2d 228, 231 (Ky.1976). Jury instructions in criminal cases should conform to the language of the applicable statute and, generally, it is left to the lawyers to flesh out the bare bones in closing argument. Parks v. Commonwealth, 192 S.W.3d 318, 326 (Ky.2006). We review a trial court's rulings regarding jury instructions for an abuse of discretion. Ratliff v. Commonwealth, 194 S.W.3d 258, 274 (Ky.2006).

The insanity defense is set forth in KRS 504.020, which provides in pertinent part:

(1) A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental illness or retardation, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.

(2) As used in this chapter, the term “mental illness or retardation” does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.

The language used in the trial court's instruction is nearly identical to the language of KRS 504.020. Appellant essentially argues that the language of KRS 504.020(2) should not be included in an insanity instruction if there is substantial evidence that the defendant suffers from a mental illness other than repeated criminal or antisocial conduct. We disagree.

The language in subsection (2) is an essential part of the insanity defense. Subsection (1) sets forth the requirements that must be met for the defense to apply. Subsection (2) defines the term “mental illness,” as used in subsection (1), by limiting the types of abnormalities which are sufficient to sustain the defense. Because the language in subsection (2) defines a term used in subsection (1), it is necessarily implicated any time a defendant raises the insanity defense, regardless of the evidence presented at trial. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by including the language of KRS 504.020(2) in its insanity instruction.

C. Extreme Emotional Disturbance Instruction

Appellant next claims that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on extreme emotional disturbance (EED). He acknowledges that this alleged error was not preserved; therefore, he requests palpable error review under RCr 10.26.

After the evidence was presented, Appellant's counsel requested that the trial court instruct the jury on first-degree manslaughter based on EED. Counsel asserted that the jury could conclude that Appellant was acting under EED because he had been kicked out of his house prior to the incident. Appellant's counsel tendered an instruction on first-degree manslaughter and the trial court ultimately gave the jury Appellant's tendered instruction which provides in pertinent part:

[Y]ou will find the Defendant guilty of First Degree Manslaughter under this instruction if, and only if, you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt all of the following:

....

A. That ... he killed Sharon Gette by stabbing her;

AND

B. He was acting under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance.

According to Appellant, this instruction incorrectly required him to prove the existence of EED beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, Appellant contends that the jury instruction constitutes palpable error.

Appellant is correct in his assertion that a defendant is not required to prove the existence of EED beyond a reasonable doubt.⁶ However, a defendant cannot seek reversal of his conviction on the basis of an improper jury instruction where the instruction given was the instruction he requested. Mason v. Commonwealth, 565 S.W.2d 140, 140 (Ky.1978). In Mason, the defendant tendered proposed insanity instructions, which were identical to the instructions ultimately given by the trial court....