Berry Hall v.Commonwealth, 12-SC-423-MR (rendered 8/20/15)(to be published). Reversed.
Mr. Hall’s two convictions for murder (guilty
but mentally ill) and four convictions for first degree wanton endangerment,
and his corresponding LWOP sentence, are reversed, and a new trial ordered. The Court reversed because of the admission
of 28 gruesome photographs. They “substantially
influenced the jury's decision to reject the defendant's affirmative defenses
and, instead, convict him of intentional murder. The fact that Hall was found
guilty but mentally ill drives home this point since the jury clearly put some
stock in Hall's claims of insanity and EED; and the emotional responses flowing
from the error here certainly would have influenced the final balance tilting
in favor of a verdict of guilty but mentally ill rather than not guilty by
reason of insanity or, more likely, a finding of guilt as to first-degree
manslaughter under EED.”
Practice
tip: One trying a case involving photos
should read this opinion. The trial court must engage in three-prong KRE 403
analysis when confronted with a motion to exclude photographs. The trial court should (1) assess probative
worth of proffered evidence; (2) assess the risk of undue prejudice; and (3)
evaluate whether probative value is substantially outweighed by the undue
prejudice. While the Commonwealth can choose to put on its case as it sees fit,
“the Commonwealth's prerogative in dictating the specific evidence used to
prove its case is not without limit, and Rule 403 is perhaps the most important
check on the Commonwealth in this respect.”
The analysis of probative value is
not to be done in a vacuum—the trial court must consider other evidence that
has or will be admitted, and evidentiary alternatives. When considering undue prejudice, the court
should consider “emotionalism”—does the evidence arouse passions and
sympathies, obstructing careful thought and judgment? The court should make findings documenting its
ultimate decision. The Court wants this
done picture by picture, and for
each picture the court must consider any other pictures that have already been
admitted, as well as all the other evidence.
Will Collins, Steve Goble, and Jim Gibson
represented Mr. Hall before the Floyd Circuit Court, and Emily Rhorer
represented him on direct appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court.
