Shields v. Com., 90-SC-348-MR
| Decision Date | 06 June 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-SC-348-MR,90-SC-348-MR |
| Citation | 812 S.W.2d 152 |
| Parties | Rodney Linear SHIELDS, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Daniel T. Goyette, Jefferson Dist. Public Defender, J. David Niehaus, Deputy Appellate Defender of the Jefferson Dist. Public Defender, Louisville, for appellant.
Frederic J. Cowan, Atty. Gen., Ian G. Sonego, Asst. Atty. Gen., Criminal Appellate Div., Frankfort, for appellee.
This is a direct appeal from a jury verdict convicting Rodney Linear Shields of first-degree robbery and of being a persistent felony offender in the second degree and fixing his punishment at twelve years' imprisonment, enhanced to thirty-two years.
The sole issue is whether the trial judge committed reversible error in sustaining a pretrial in limine motion of the Commonwealth to prevent defense counsel from discussing the penalty range during voir dire. Under the circumstances of this particular case, we hold that there was no reversible error; however, we believe we should clarify our position as to the effect of KRS 532.055, the so-called "truth-in-sentencing" statute, on the voir dire process under RCr 9.38 and earlier cases decided thereunder. Some confusion may have arisen as a result of the following language contained in our majority opinion in Carter v. Commonwealth, Ky., 782 S.W.2d 597 (1989) at p. 601:
Carter's next issue is that, after the jury returned with a verdict finding him guilty of both possession and trafficking in LSD, the trial court improperly advised the jury how to correct the verdict. While explaining to them the difference in these two offenses, and that they could not find Carter guilty of both, presumably the court also informed them that the offense of trafficking carries a stiffer penalty than the offense of possession. Carter argues that this information may have impermissibly influenced the jury to find him guilty of the more serious offense. He claims that telling the jury sentencing information during the guilt/innocence phase of the trial violated the statutory process of a bifurcated trial as set forth in the new truth-in-sentencing statute, KRS 532.055, and thereby denied him due process of law. We agree the statute now so provides. (Emphasis in original.)
It is true that our current criminal trial procedure generally precludes the jury from hearing purely "sentencing information" during the guilt or innocence phase of a trial. However, it does not absolutely preclude their being given some information of that type incidental to a proper voir dire examination. In order to be qualified to sit as a juror in a criminal case, a member of the venire must be able to consider any permissible punishment. If he cannot, then he properly may be challenged for cause. See Grooms v. Commonwealth, Ky., 756 S.W.2d 131 (1988). This type of questioning, of course, must come before the guilt or innocence phase since there is no separate voir dire thereafter but before the punishment phase.
As we held in Iles v. Commonwealth, Ky., 455 S.W.2d 533 (19...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Springer v. Commonwealth
...penalty authorized for the most serious offense of which she could be convicted, i.e., twenty years (for murder). In Shields v. Commonwealth, KY., 812 S.W.2d 152 (1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1065 (1992), we [110] In order to be qualified to sit as a juror in a criminal case, a member of t......
-
Caudill v. Com., 2000-SC-0296-MR.
...756 S.W.2d 131 (1988). 4. Id. at 137. 5. Lawson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 53 S.W.3d 534, 541 (2001) (emphasis added). 6. Shields v. Commonwealth, Ky., 812 S.W.2d 152, 153 (1991) (emphasis added), overruled on other grounds by Lawson v. Commonwealth, supra note 5. See also Woodall v. Commonwealt......
-
Fugate v. Com.
...trial judge improperly refused to allow him to voir dire the jury on the full range of penalties. He argues that under Shields v. Commonwealth, Ky., 812 S.W.2d 152 (1991), he was entitled to inform the jury that the minimum punishment for the murder charge was 20 years in prison and that th......
-
Furnish v. Com.
...jury requires the jury to possess the ability to consider the full range of penalties[.]" (emphasis added)); Shields v. Commonwealth, Ky., 812 S.W.2d 152, 153 (1991) ("In order to sit as a juror in a criminal case, a member of the venire must be able to consider any permissible punishment."......