Watkins v. Commonwealth
2003 Ky. LEXIS 120, 2003 WL 21257948, 105 S.W.3d 449 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant is entitled to a 'no adverse inference' jury instruction upon request during the persistent felony offender (PFO) phase of a trial because this phase requires a determination of guilt, triggering the defendant's constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Facts:
- Gary Watkins, Jr. was an inmate at the Hart County jail, where he worked in the kitchen.
- On May 20, 2000, Watkins stole a 1997 Dodge Ram truck belonging to deputy jailer Della Trulock.
- The truck contained a 9mm gun and $400 in cash.
- Watkins was subsequently located at a hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, and the truck was found in a nearby parking lot.
- While being transported back to Kentucky by Hart County deputies, Watkins stated that he had stolen the truck.
- Watkins also told the deputies that if the truck's battery had not died, he would have made it to Canada.
Procedural Posture:
- Gary Watkins, Jr. was tried in Hart Circuit Court on charges of theft, escape, and being a persistent felony offender (PFO).
- Prior to trial, defense counsel moved to suppress incriminating statements Watkins made to police.
- The trial court held a suppression hearing and ruled the statements were voluntary and admissible.
- A jury found Watkins guilty of theft by unlawful taking over $300 and second-degree escape.
- During the penalty phase, which included the PFO determination, defense counsel requested a 'no adverse inference of guilt' jury instruction because Watkins did not testify.
- The trial court denied the request for the instruction.
- The jury subsequently found Watkins guilty of being a PFO and recommended an enhanced sentence, which the court imposed.
- Watkins, the appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of Kentucky as a matter of right.
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 a trial court err by denying a defendant's request for a 'no adverse inference of guilt' instruction during a combined sentencing and persistent felony offender (PFO) phase of a trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Lambert
Yes. A trial court errs by refusing a defendant's request for a 'no adverse inference' jury instruction during a persistent felony offender (PFO) proceeding because that portion of the trial is a determination of guilt. The court affirmed Watkins's convictions for theft and escape, reasoning that his confession was voluntary and not the product of custodial interrogation, as he initiated the conversation with deputies. The court also found no error in Watkins's absence from in-chambers legal discussions, as he did not object and showed no prejudice. However, the court held that denying the requested 'no adverse inference' instruction during the PFO phase was a reversible error. Citing Hibbard v. Commonwealth, the court explained that unlike a pure sentencing phase, a PFO proceeding requires the jury to determine the defendant's 'guilt' on the PFO charge. Therefore, under RCr 9.54 and Carter v. Kentucky, the instruction is mandatory upon request.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the distinction between a pure sentencing phase and a proceeding that includes a determination of guilt, such as a persistent felony offender (PFO) hearing. It clarifies that key constitutional protections applicable to a guilt-innocence trial, specifically the right to a 'no adverse inference' instruction for remaining silent, extend to any phase where a jury makes a finding of guilt. This precedent establishes that even after a conviction on underlying charges, a defendant retains this protection when facing a subsequent jury determination of their status as a PFO. The ruling ensures that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is robustly protected throughout all guilt-adjudication stages of a criminal trial.
