Williams v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 13 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2020-CA-0792-MR |
| Parties | CORY M. WILLIAMS APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEES |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:
OPINION AFFIRMING
Cory M. Williams ("Williams") appeals from the judgment of the Ohio Circuit Court convicting him of second-degree assault and sentencing him to five years' imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.
This case stems from an assault committed by Williams upon Spencer Turner ("Turner") in the early morning hours of October 14, 2018, outside of Williams' home. Prior to the assault, Williams was in Ohio for several days attending a training for his job as a coal miner. Williams' girlfriend, Tameicka Cobb ("Cobb"), and her two-year-old daughter accompanied Williams to the training.
At some point, Williams and Cobb got into an argument and according to Cobb, Williams kicked her and her daughter out of the hotel room.[1]Cobb called Turner, who arranged for a room at the hotel and offered to drive to Ohio to pick Cobb up and drive her back to Kentucky. Turner arrived early the next morning and after spending the day in a nearby town, the group headed home.
Back in Kentucky, Turner took Cobb to retrieve her belongings from Williams' house. According to Turner, as he was helping load bags into his vehicle, Williams got in his face and challenged him to fight. Turner declined and turned his back to Williams to adjust his seat so that he could leave. As he turned to face Williams, Williams punched him in the nose. Turner testified that Williams hit him in the face around six times, and that each time he could hear bones in his face breaking. Cobb confirmed that Williams was the aggressor and that Turner never hit Williams. Because of the assault, Turner suffered multiple broken and displaced bones in his face and later underwent surgery to repair his injuries.
Williams was indicted for second-degree assault and was tried on February 19-20, 2020. Following the evidence, he was convicted of second-degree assault and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. This appeal followed. Further facts will be set forth as necessary below.
Williams first argues on appeal that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of a prior bad act in violation of KRE[2] 404(b). At trial, the Commonwealth introduced evidence of an incident where Williams damaged a truck belonging to the father of Cobb's child after learning Cobb was visiting him. The Commonwealth responds that the evidence was relevant to show motive and Williams' jealously. As an initial matter, we note that this error was not properly preserved for review. Prior to trial, Williams filed a motion in limine to exclude the evidence but the trial court reserved ruling on the motion. Therefore, the motion was not "resolved by order of record," as required by KRE 103(d) to preserve the error for appellate review. It was imperative on Williams to make a contemporaneous objection at trial to preserve the issue, which he did not do. See Commonwealth v. Pace, 82 S.W.3d 894, 895 (Ky. 2002) (citing RCr[3] 9.22) ("[A] litigant must contemporaneously object to preserve an error for review."). We, therefore, review only for palpable error resulting in manifest injustice, pursuant to RCr 10.26.
"The palpable error rule allows reversal for an unpreserved error only when 'manifest injustice has resulted from the error.'" Elery v. Commonwealth, 368 S.W.3d 78, 98 (Ky. 2012) (citing RCr 10.26). "This requires a probability of a different result or error so fundamental as to threaten a defendant's entitlement to due process of law." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In other words, "[t]o find manifest injustice, the reviewing court must conclude that the error so seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceeding as to be 'shocking or jurisprudentially intolerable.'" Conrad v. Commonwealth, 534 S.W.3d 779, 783 (Ky. 2017) (citation omitted).
"Generally, evidence of prior threats and animosity of the defendant against the victim is admissible as evidence of motive, intent or identity, whereas evidence of prior threats or violence against an unrelated third-party is generally regarded as inadmissible character evidence[.]" Davis v. Commonwealth, 147 S.W.3d 709, 722 (Ky. 2004), as modified (Jan. 25, 2005) (internal citation omitted). Assuming, without deciding, that admission of the KRE 404(b) evidence was error, it was not palpable error. The evidence of Williams' guilt was substantial. Both Cobb and Turner testified that Williams approached Turner while Turner was loading Cobb's possessions into the vehicle. Both similarly testified that it was Williams who punched Turner and was the aggressor and that Turner never made any threatening movements towards Williams. We cannot say "there is a 'substantial possibility' that the result in the case would have been different without the error." Brewer v. Commonwealth, 206 S.W.3d 343, 349 (Ky. 2006) (citation omitted).
Williams next argues that the trial court erred in admitting highly prejudicial photographs of Turner's surgery, citing Hall v. Commonwealth, 468 S.W.3d 814 (Ky. 2015). "We review a trial court's ruling on the admission of evidence for abuse of discretion." Breazeale v. Commonwealth, 600 S.W.3d 682, 692 (Ky. 2020) (citation omitted). "A trial court abuses its discretion when it rules in a way that is arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles." Id. (citation omitted).
During the testimony of Dr. Benjamin Kittinger, who performed the surgery to repair Turner's facial injuries, the Commonwealth introduced four photographs taken during the procedure. According to Dr. Kittinger, Exhibit 12 showed how he got "to the cheekbone through the lower eyelid incision" and showed the "lower aspect of the eye socket with the plates and screws in place holding it exactly like we wanted it."
Exhibit 11 and 14 were almost identical, both showing "the plate and screw fixation we did along that broken [cheekbone ]" with Exhibit 14 being a close-up photo. The photos showed how the doctor accessed the cheekbone by making an incision from ear to ear and folding the...
To continue reading
Request your trial