Michael D. St. Clair v. Commonwealth, 2012-SC-000130, rendered 2/19/15, to be published, reversing. Opinion by Justice Noble, all concurring.
In St. Clair’s third Hardin
County capital kidnap trial, St. Clair was convicted of capital kidnapping and
sentenced to death in 2012. The jury found three aggravators, that the victim
was not released alive, that St. Clair had a prior record of conviction for a
capital offense, and the kidnapping was committed during a robbery. The Kentucky Supreme Court concludes here on direct appeal that the entire case must be remanded for a
possible fourth trial due to improper introduction of prejudicial 404(b)
evidence of an unrelated murder in New Mexico allegedly committed by St. Clair,
and improper evidence of the New Mexico victim's background.
The case in Hardin County has
now been reversed on appeal twice following jury trials due to errors committed
by the prosecution. Additionally, a third trial ended in a mistrial due to a
prosecutor’s improper opening statement in which he alluded to an unrelated New
Mexico murder. The Supreme Court attributed some of the difficulty in trying
this case to choices made by the prosecution. Had the prosecution joined the
kidnapping case in Hardin County with the murder case in Bullitt County, the
duplicative three trials (and now possibly a fourth) in Hardin County could
have been avoided and evidentiary difficulties could have been avoided. (See
page 8 of the Opinion.)
The common sense, cost effective
reform identified in the ABA Kentucky Assessment Team’s 2011 Report and Senator Robin Webb’s SB 190 will help fix problems in Kentucky’s troubled death penalty
system.
The Opinion contains numerous
evidentiary rulings, as follows:
1) Evidence of the
murder of a victim in New Mexico was reversible error because this was a
kidnapping case; however evidence of the robbery and abduction of that victim
was not error;
2) Victim background
evidence related to the victim in New Mexico was reversible error; “evidence of
victims of other crimes beyond those being tried has no place in a criminal
trial”;
3) Proof of St.
Clair’s statement that killing people was easy, and proof that St. Clair saw
the killing as a joking matter and that it had excited him was improper
character evidence. It should not be allowed in a retrial.
4) Evidence that St.
Clair tore up the photo of the New Mexico victim’s daughter and
commented, there’s “a bitch that’s going to grow up without a daddy” was
inadmissible evidence of “despicable character”:
5) Evidence that
before his escape from jail in Oklahoma St. Clair was considered a high
security risk held in maximum security was admissible because it was relevant
to his motive “to do anything to avoid going back to prison” including
attempted murder of a police officer.
6) Evidence that St.
Clair had at least one LWOP sentence waiting for him in Oklahoma was relevant
and admissible to show his motive to attempt to kill Trooper Bennett.
7) Evidence that St.
Clair was a danger to the friends that sheltered him and that he was already
wanted for murder when he arrived in Kentucky was inadmissible, but prejudice
was cured by admonition.
8) The court did not
err in excluding details regarding that the aaltperp’s prior murder because it
was not similar enough to the Kentucky kidnap/murder.
Wanton prosecutorial
misconduct is not enough.
While the Kentucky Supreme Court acknowledges in
this Opinion that there was evidence that wanton prosecutorial misconduct
caused the mistrial of the second, 2009 Hardin County capital kidnap trial, the
Court here holds that merely wanton prosecutorial misconduct does not meet the
“high standard” for a mistrial; to win a mistrial one must prove that
misconduct was intended to cause a mistrial. The defense moved for
mistrial and double jeopardy did not bar the third trial.
Death penalty for kidnap
upheld without jury finding of murder.
The Court fails to answer
whether the trial court erred by ignoring the mandate in St. Clair v.
Commonwealth, 174 S.W.3d 474 (Ky. 2005) (Hardin I) requiring a jury
finding that St. Clair murdered the victim as a pre-requisite to imposing a
death penalty. The Opinion—contrary to the rule in the vast majority of
states—approves (in dicta) allowing the death penalty for capital kidnap
regardless whether a kidnap victim dies accidentally.
St. Clair was represented at
trial by Scott Drabenstadt and Justin Brown. He was represented on appeal by
Susan Balliet, Sam Potter, and Robert Yang.
Contributed by Susan Balliet.
