St. Clair v. Commonwealth
2004 WL 314613, 140 S.W.3d 510 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Kentucky law, the capital sentencing aggravating circumstance that a murder was committed by a person with a 'prior record of conviction for a capital offense' requires that the defendant was found guilty of the prior capital offense, via verdict or plea, before committing the new murder. Additionally, when a new sentencing statute mitigates penalties, a capital defendant who committed a crime before the new law's effective date is entitled to have the jury instructed on the new, less severe sentencing option, such as life without parole, upon their consent.
Facts:
- In September 1991, Michael D. St. Clair and Dennis Gene Reese escaped from a jail in Oklahoma.
- The men stole a pickup truck, a handgun, and ammunition from the home of Vernon Stephens before fleeing to Texas.
- St. Clair's then-wife, Bylynn, met the men in Texas and provided them with money, clothing, and other items.
- According to Reese's testimony, the men traveled to Colorado, where St. Clair kidnapped Timothy Keeling, and then to New Mexico, where St. Clair executed Keeling.
- St. Clair and Reese then drove to Hardin County, Kentucky, where St. Clair kidnapped Frances C. Brady and stole his pickup truck.
- St. Clair burned Keeling's truck to destroy evidence.
- On or about October 6, 1991, St. Clair executed Brady with a handgun in a secluded area of Bullitt County, Kentucky.
- Shortly thereafter, when Kentucky State Trooper Herbert Bennett attempted a traffic stop of Brady's truck, St. Clair fired shots at the trooper's cruiser and fled.
Procedural Posture:
- A Bullitt County Grand Jury indicted Michael D. St. Clair for the murder of Frances C. Brady.
- The Commonwealth filed a Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty against St. Clair.
- St. Clair filed a pre-trial motion requesting that Life Without Parole (LWOP) be included as a sentencing option, which the Bullitt Circuit Court (a trial court) denied.
- Following a trial, the jury found St. Clair guilty of murder.
- In the subsequent capital sentencing phase, the jury found the presence of an aggravating circumstance and recommended a sentence of death.
- The trial court entered a final judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict, sentencing St. Clair to death.
- St. Clair filed a matter-of-right appeal to the Supreme Court of Kentucky, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the aggravating circumstance that a murder 'was committed by a person with a prior record of conviction for a capital offense' under KRS 532.025(2)(a)(l) require the conviction to be a final, non-appealable judgment that existed at the time the murder was committed?
Opinions:
Majority - Opinion of the Court
No, the conviction does not need to be a final, non-appealable judgment, but it must be a finding of guilt by verdict or plea that existed prior to the commission of the murder for which the death penalty is sought. The court holds that the plain language of the statute, '[t]he offense of murder... was committed by a person with a prior record of conviction,' requires an evaluation of the defendant's status at the time the offense was committed, not at the time of sentencing. The court overrules prior precedent, Thompson v. Commonwealth, which required a final, non-appealable judgment. Instead, it holds that the 'common and approved use of language' for 'conviction' in this context includes a finding of guilt by a jury verdict or an accepted guilty plea. Because St. Clair had been found guilty of two murders by a jury in Oklahoma before he murdered Brady, the evidence was sufficient to support the aggravating circumstance. However, the court reverses St. Clair's death sentence on other grounds: the trial court erroneously failed to grant St. Clair's request for a jury instruction on the sentencing option of life without possibility of parole (LWOP), which had become available through a statutory amendment before his trial.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Cooper, J.
No, but this new interpretation cannot be applied retroactively to St. Clair. Justice Cooper agrees with the majority that Thompson v. Commonwealth should be overruled but argues that applying the new interpretation to St. Clair violates the Due Process Clause. At the time St. Clair committed the murder, the law in Kentucky, as established by Thompson, required a final, non-appealable judgment to prove this aggravating circumstance. St. Clair did not have such a judgment. Applying a new, unforeseeable judicial construction that expands criminal liability or punishment retroactively violates the 'fair warning' principle. Therefore, while St. Clair's conviction should stand, he should not be eligible for the death penalty on remand.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Keller, J.
Yes, a 'prior record of conviction' must be a final judgment, and therefore the Commonwealth failed to prove the aggravating circumstance. Justice Keller would reverse the murder conviction entirely due to the erroneous admission of a key witness's video deposition without a constitutionally adequate showing of her unavailability. Furthermore, she dissents from the majority's decision to overrule Thompson, arguing that the rule of lenity and the technical meaning of 'conviction' require it to be interpreted as a final judgment when severe legal disabilities like death eligibility are at stake. Because St. Clair did not have a final conviction when he killed Brady, the trial court should have directed a verdict against the death penalty. Thus, upon a new trial, the maximum sentence should be life imprisonment.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of a key aggravating circumstance in Kentucky capital cases. By holding that a 'conviction' means a finding of guilt rather than a final judgment, the court broadens the potential for death penalty eligibility for defendants who commit a capital offense while a prior capital charge is pending post-verdict or post-plea. However, the ruling simultaneously narrows the statute's application by requiring that this finding of guilt must exist prior to the commission of the new offense, preventing the 'stacking' of aggravators from crimes committed in a single spree but tried together. The separate opinions raise substantial due process concerns about retroactively applying this new standard, suggesting that its application in future cases involving crimes committed before this decision may be subject to challenge.
