KY COA June 22 - Lemons - Applicaton of KRS 503.085 Self Defense Dismissal

BRIAN J. LEMONS V. COMMONWEALTH, 2010-CA-001942-MR, 2012 WL 2360131,

To-be-published, June 22, 2012,

Reversing with directions to dismiss the indictment. 

Reviewing the witness statements and police reports underlying Lemons’ KRS 503.085 claim of immunity from prosecution because he acted in self-defense, the Court of Appeals found that “the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that Lemons’s use of force was unlawful.”  The Court went on to say that “the Commonwealth cannot meet this burden simply by asserting that a jury could reject the defendant's version of the facts. Otherwise, KRS 503.085 would not result in any meaningful change in the law in circumstances where a change was clearly intended.”

Witnesses here disagreed on many things.  But several witnesses corroborated that the so-called victim and his two brothers initiated the violence by knocking out Lemons’ friend (chipping three teeth and causing him to bleed profusely from his mouth), and picking up and throwing Lemons’ girlfriend to the ground.  No one but Lemons saw what happened next, when the so-called victim swiftly pinned Lemons against a car and Lemons defended himself by sticking him in the shoulder and back with his pocketknife.

Lemons pled to manslaughter and accepted a 14-year sentence conditioned on the appeal of his immunity motion.  Had he gone to trial, asserted self-defense, and lost, he could have raised on appeal both the denial of his immunity motion and insufficiency of the Commonwealth’s evidence controverting his claim of self-defense.  But a negative jury verdict on self-defense might have clouded the KRS 503.085 issue and made it harder to win.

TRIAL TIP:  This case is not final and may well be reviewed by the Kentucky Supreme Court.  Meanwhile, even if your case involves complex facts and witnesses who contradict each other, you should be filing pretrial motions under KRS 503.085 to dismiss the indictment when your client has a self-defense/defense of others claim.

Kudos to trial counsel Aaron Currin for raising and preserving this issue. 

Contributed by Tom Randell

Featured Case - Barker - Self-defense instruction

Barker v. Commonwealth, 2009-SC-794 (June 16, 2011) (published)-

The Supreme Court found palpable error due to the erroneous wording of the provocation qualifier of a self-defense instruction. A defendant forfeits his right to the defense of self-protection when (1) the defendant had the intention of causing serious physical injury to the victim; and (2) the defendant must actually provoke the victim to use physical force. In this case, the provocation qualifier failed to include the element requiring the defendant to provoke the victim with the intent to cause death or serious physical injury to him. 

The instruction given -

Provided, however, that if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Adam Anthony Barker provoked Zachary Scarpellini and/or Shawn Reilly to use or attempt to use physical force upon the defendant, Adam Anthony Barker, and that they did so with the intention of causing death or serious physical injury to Adam Anthony Barker, then the defense of self-protection is not available to him.

The Kentucky Supreme Court  -

The instruction given in this case is fatally flawed because it fails to properly set out the elements of the statute. It lacks the statutory element requiring Appellant to provoke the victim with the intent to cause death or serious physical injury to him . Instead, the instruction requires that Zachary Scarpellini and/or Shawn Reilly have the intent to cause death or serious physical injury to Appellant. The provocation exception, under KRS 503.060(2), is concerned with the defendant's state of mind, not the victim's.

Contributed by Shannon Smith