Broyles v. Commonwealth
267 S.W.2d 73, 47 A.L.R. 2d 1252, 1954 Ky. LEXIS 826 (1954)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
It is improper and constitutes reversible error for a prosecutor, in their argument to the jury, to discuss the specifics of parole eligibility and the exact number of years a defendant must serve before release, as this infringes upon the separation of powers and injects prejudicial, irrelevant information into jury deliberations.
Facts:
- George Richard Broyles was accused of murdering Billy D. Smithers.
Procedural Posture:
- George Richard Broyles was tried for murder in a Kentucky trial court.
- At trial, Broyles presented witnesses who testified to his good reputation for peace and quietude.
- The prosecutor cross-examined these witnesses about their knowledge of Broyles's prior convictions for drunken driving, reckless driving, and disorderly conduct; the trial court permitted this questioning with a limiting instruction.
- During closing arguments, the prosecutor detailed the specific parole eligibility timelines for various sentences, to which the defense objected.
- The jury found Broyles guilty of murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment.
- Broyles (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, the state's highest court at the time.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a prosecutor's closing argument to the jury that details the specific number of years a defendant must serve before becoming eligible for parole under different potential sentences sufficiently prejudicial to constitute reversible error?
Opinions:
Majority - Combs, J.
Yes. A prosecutor's detailed argument regarding parole eligibility constitutes reversible error. The court reasoned that the determination of parole is a function of the executive and legislative branches of government, not the judiciary. For the court system to anticipate or circumvent parole rules infringes upon the separation of powers. A jury's deliberation should be based solely on the facts of the case and the law as provided in the court's instructions, not on speculative and potentially inaccurate expositions of parole law. While the court had previously condemned such arguments but often found them harmless, the prosecutor's argument in this case—which included a detailed résumé of the parole law and specific timeframes—was so pernicious that the court could no longer overlook the error. The court also held, however, that the cross-examination of Broyles's character witnesses regarding his prior convictions for drunken driving, reckless driving, and disorderly conduct was permissible, as these offenses have a reasonable connection to a reputation for peace and quietude.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a firm boundary against prosecutorial arguments concerning parole, shifting the doctrine from mere condemnation to a basis for reversal. It signals to lower courts and prosecutors that while general references to parole might be overlooked, detailed discussions that provide specific timelines cross the line into prejudicial error. The case reinforces the separation of powers doctrine by strictly confining the jury's role to the facts and instructions, leaving post-conviction matters like parole to the appropriate government branches. This holding protects defendants from juries who might be improperly influenced to impose harsher sentences based on fears of early release rather than on the evidence presented at trial.
Unlock the full brief for Broyles v. Commonwealth