RENDERED : APRIL 22, 2010 T ,T
077uprrmr (~Vurf of `~R 2008-SC-000763-MR
ATE - / 3 /a ., -WA ~t Ac. JAMES KENT CONN - APPELLA T
ON APPEAL FROM ROWAN CIRCUIT COURT V. HONORABLE WILLIAM B . MAINS, JUDGE NO . 08-CR-00018
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
AFFIRMING
Appellant, James Kent Conn, was found guilty by a Rowan Circuit Court
jury of murder . For this crime, Appellant was sentenced to forty-five years
imprisonment . He now appeals his conviction as a matter of right. Ky. Const.
§ 110(2)(b) .
I. Background
On October 5, 2007, Appellant's son, James Brent Conn, was found dead
in a South Florida motel room . Brent had traveled to Florida in the company of
Tim Riggs where the two planned to obtain prescription pills from a local pain
clinic . According to Riggs, Brent was alone drinking alcohol and ingesting pills
when Riggs left for a bar with his girlfriend . The next morning, Brent could not
be awakened . His cause of death was later determined as a drug overdose - a
fact of which Appellant claimed he was unaware. Appellant became convinced that Riggs was somehow to blame for his
son's death . His suspicions were stoked when Brent's mother, Cynthia, relayed
what she believed were Riggs' inconsistent accounts of what had happened .
Over the ensuing weeks, Appellant began to make threats on Riggs' life to those
around him . Riggs eventually learned that Appellant thought him responsible
for Brent's death and that his life was in danger .
On the night of October 29, 2007, Appellant and his wife, Katherine,
drove from their home in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee to Riggs' home in Rowan
County, Kentucky . Once there, Appellant, armed with a handgun, exited his
vehicle and confronted Riggs outside of his trailer. Katherine heard Appellant
ask Riggs whether his name was "Tim" before, according to Appellant, Riggs
charged at him with a knife and Appellant fired . Appellant returned to his
vehicle and proceeded to drive back to his home in Pigeon Forge, disposing of
the firearm in the process. Riggs was later found dead in his neighbor's yard
with a fatal gunshot wound to his chest.
At trial, Appellant admitted that he drove to Riggs' home armed with a
handgun and later left the scene without notifying police . He claimed,
however, that he only intended to speak with Riggs regarding his son's death
and only fired when he believed that his life was in danger from Riggs'
attempted knife attack. Other witnesses could not corroborate Appellant's
version of events . At the conclusion of trial, the jury rejected Appellant's claim of self-
defense and found him guilty of murder, fixing his punishment at forty-five
years imprisonment . On appeal, Appellant raises three allegations of error in
his underlying trial : 1) that the trial court erroneously denied him the
opportunity to depose witnesses prior to trial; 2) that the trial court
erroneously admitted hearsay; and 3) that he was entitled to an extreme
emotional disturbance instruction. For the reasons that follow, we affirm
Appellant's conviction.
II. Analysis
A. RCr 7.10 Depositions
Appellant first argues that the trial court erred in denying his request to
take pretrial depositions that were relevant to his claim of extreme emotional
disturbance . We cannot agree.
Prior to trial, Appellant filed a motion to take the deposition of several
Florida residents: two police officers and a medical examiner in Broward
County. In the accompanying affidavit of materiality, Appellant argued that the
witnesses possessed knowledge that was relevant to his claim of extreme
emotional disturbance and, generally, to both his and Riggs' state of mind.'
The Commonwealth opposed the motion and contended that the underlying
Florida police and autopsy reports documenting Brent Conn's death were
' In particular, the affidavit indicated that both police officers would testify that Riggs stated that Brent Conn had been drinking prior to his death (in spite of the fact that no alcohol was found in his system) and that no part of some $2,000 in cash (thought to be in Brent's possession) was found during their investigation . The affidavit also stated that the Broward County medical examiner had a conversation with Appellant regarding Brent's death. irrelevant to Riggs' death . The trial court, in a written order, denied Appellant's
motion.
RCr 7.10(1) provides that, upon motion and notice to the parties, a trial
court may order a witness's testimony be taken by deposition "[i]f it appears
that" : (1) the "witness may be unable to attend or is or may be prevented from
attending a trial or hearing or is or may become a nonresident of the
Commonwealth"; (2) "that the witness's testimony is material"; (3) "and that it
is necessary to take the witness's deposition in order to prevent a failure of
justice." The trial court's determination in this regard is left to its sound
discretion. Lovett v. Commonwealth, 103 S .W.3d 72, 82 (Ky. 2003) .
Accordingly, we review for an abuse of discretion, asking "whether the trial
judge's decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound
legal principles ." Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999)
(citation omitted) .
Having reviewed the affidavit, we do not believe that the trial court
abused its discretion in denying Appellant's motion. The materiality of the
officers' testimony to Appellant's claim of extreme emotional disturbance was
unclear, as it does not appear that Appellant knew of the officers' findings prior
to his shooting and killing Riggs. See McClellan v. Commonwealth, 715 S .W.2d
464, 469 (Ky. 1986) ("[A]n enraged, inflamed, or disturbed emotional state does
not constitute an extreme emotional disturbance unless there is a reasonable
explanation . . . which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under circumstances as defendant believed them to be.")
(emphasis added) . In the same vein, the affidavit did not indicate the subject
and time of Appellant's conversation with the medical examiner which could
have established its relevance to his claim. In any event, Appellant made
absolutely no showing that the court-ordered depositions were necessary to
prevent a failure of justice . 2
B . Inadmissible Hearsay
Appellant next argues that he was prejudiced by the trial court's
erroneous admission of hearsay evidence . We briefly address each contention,
as they lack merit .
A fundamental rule in the law of evidence is that hearsay evidence is
inadmissible evidence . "An out of court statement offered, in court, to prove
the truth of the matter asserted is not admissible unless it meets one of our
well established exceptions." Wells v. Commonwealth, 892 S .W.2d 299, 301
(Ky. 1995) .
Though Appellant first takes issue with statements by Detective Hall to
the effect that Appellant made prior threats against Riggs, his objection was
sustained and Appellant did not request an admonition or further relief.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
RENDERED : APRIL 22, 2010 T ,T
077uprrmr (~Vurf of `~R 2008-SC-000763-MR
ATE - / 3 /a ., -WA ~t Ac. JAMES KENT CONN - APPELLA T
ON APPEAL FROM ROWAN CIRCUIT COURT V. HONORABLE WILLIAM B . MAINS, JUDGE NO . 08-CR-00018
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
AFFIRMING
Appellant, James Kent Conn, was found guilty by a Rowan Circuit Court
jury of murder . For this crime, Appellant was sentenced to forty-five years
imprisonment . He now appeals his conviction as a matter of right. Ky. Const.
§ 110(2)(b) .
I. Background
On October 5, 2007, Appellant's son, James Brent Conn, was found dead
in a South Florida motel room . Brent had traveled to Florida in the company of
Tim Riggs where the two planned to obtain prescription pills from a local pain
clinic . According to Riggs, Brent was alone drinking alcohol and ingesting pills
when Riggs left for a bar with his girlfriend . The next morning, Brent could not
be awakened . His cause of death was later determined as a drug overdose - a
fact of which Appellant claimed he was unaware. Appellant became convinced that Riggs was somehow to blame for his
son's death . His suspicions were stoked when Brent's mother, Cynthia, relayed
what she believed were Riggs' inconsistent accounts of what had happened .
Over the ensuing weeks, Appellant began to make threats on Riggs' life to those
around him . Riggs eventually learned that Appellant thought him responsible
for Brent's death and that his life was in danger .
On the night of October 29, 2007, Appellant and his wife, Katherine,
drove from their home in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee to Riggs' home in Rowan
County, Kentucky . Once there, Appellant, armed with a handgun, exited his
vehicle and confronted Riggs outside of his trailer. Katherine heard Appellant
ask Riggs whether his name was "Tim" before, according to Appellant, Riggs
charged at him with a knife and Appellant fired . Appellant returned to his
vehicle and proceeded to drive back to his home in Pigeon Forge, disposing of
the firearm in the process. Riggs was later found dead in his neighbor's yard
with a fatal gunshot wound to his chest.
At trial, Appellant admitted that he drove to Riggs' home armed with a
handgun and later left the scene without notifying police . He claimed,
however, that he only intended to speak with Riggs regarding his son's death
and only fired when he believed that his life was in danger from Riggs'
attempted knife attack. Other witnesses could not corroborate Appellant's
version of events . At the conclusion of trial, the jury rejected Appellant's claim of self-
defense and found him guilty of murder, fixing his punishment at forty-five
years imprisonment . On appeal, Appellant raises three allegations of error in
his underlying trial : 1) that the trial court erroneously denied him the
opportunity to depose witnesses prior to trial; 2) that the trial court
erroneously admitted hearsay; and 3) that he was entitled to an extreme
emotional disturbance instruction. For the reasons that follow, we affirm
Appellant's conviction.
II. Analysis
A. RCr 7.10 Depositions
Appellant first argues that the trial court erred in denying his request to
take pretrial depositions that were relevant to his claim of extreme emotional
disturbance . We cannot agree.
Prior to trial, Appellant filed a motion to take the deposition of several
Florida residents: two police officers and a medical examiner in Broward
County. In the accompanying affidavit of materiality, Appellant argued that the
witnesses possessed knowledge that was relevant to his claim of extreme
emotional disturbance and, generally, to both his and Riggs' state of mind.'
The Commonwealth opposed the motion and contended that the underlying
Florida police and autopsy reports documenting Brent Conn's death were
' In particular, the affidavit indicated that both police officers would testify that Riggs stated that Brent Conn had been drinking prior to his death (in spite of the fact that no alcohol was found in his system) and that no part of some $2,000 in cash (thought to be in Brent's possession) was found during their investigation . The affidavit also stated that the Broward County medical examiner had a conversation with Appellant regarding Brent's death. irrelevant to Riggs' death . The trial court, in a written order, denied Appellant's
motion.
RCr 7.10(1) provides that, upon motion and notice to the parties, a trial
court may order a witness's testimony be taken by deposition "[i]f it appears
that" : (1) the "witness may be unable to attend or is or may be prevented from
attending a trial or hearing or is or may become a nonresident of the
Commonwealth"; (2) "that the witness's testimony is material"; (3) "and that it
is necessary to take the witness's deposition in order to prevent a failure of
justice." The trial court's determination in this regard is left to its sound
discretion. Lovett v. Commonwealth, 103 S .W.3d 72, 82 (Ky. 2003) .
Accordingly, we review for an abuse of discretion, asking "whether the trial
judge's decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound
legal principles ." Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999)
(citation omitted) .
Having reviewed the affidavit, we do not believe that the trial court
abused its discretion in denying Appellant's motion. The materiality of the
officers' testimony to Appellant's claim of extreme emotional disturbance was
unclear, as it does not appear that Appellant knew of the officers' findings prior
to his shooting and killing Riggs. See McClellan v. Commonwealth, 715 S .W.2d
464, 469 (Ky. 1986) ("[A]n enraged, inflamed, or disturbed emotional state does
not constitute an extreme emotional disturbance unless there is a reasonable
explanation . . . which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under circumstances as defendant believed them to be.")
(emphasis added) . In the same vein, the affidavit did not indicate the subject
and time of Appellant's conversation with the medical examiner which could
have established its relevance to his claim. In any event, Appellant made
absolutely no showing that the court-ordered depositions were necessary to
prevent a failure of justice . 2
B . Inadmissible Hearsay
Appellant next argues that he was prejudiced by the trial court's
erroneous admission of hearsay evidence . We briefly address each contention,
as they lack merit .
A fundamental rule in the law of evidence is that hearsay evidence is
inadmissible evidence . "An out of court statement offered, in court, to prove
the truth of the matter asserted is not admissible unless it meets one of our
well established exceptions." Wells v. Commonwealth, 892 S .W.2d 299, 301
(Ky. 1995) .
Though Appellant first takes issue with statements by Detective Hall to
the effect that Appellant made prior threats against Riggs, his objection was
sustained and Appellant did not request an admonition or further relief.
"When a defendant by his own action accepts the trial court's curative action
as adequate by not requesting additional curative measures, the defendant
2 We note that Appellant retained private counsel and could have availed himself of KRS 421 .250 in order to procure the witnesses in question . cannot complain that the trial court erred ." Rankin v. Commonwealth, 265
S.W.3d 227, 235 (Ky. App. 2007) (citing Johnson v. Commonwealth, 105 S.W.3d
430, 441 (Ky. 2003)) .
Appellant similarly argues that Katie McKinney impermissibly testified to
his prior threats toward Riggs. Appellant concedes, however, that he did not
object to the statements and, moreover, he provides no citation to the record
for his allegation of error. See Copely v. Commonwealth, 854 S.W.2d 748, 750
(Ky. 1993) ("This Court will not search the record in order to find error which counsel has failed to present.") (citing Young v. Newsome, 462 S .W .2d 908 (Ky.
1971)) .
Appellant's final arguments are not preserved by objection. At trial,
Detective Gardner testified that he had heard through Roy Conn (Appellant's
nephew) that Appellant was going to travel to Rowan County to "take care of
business ." Gardner also testified that Mike Conn (Appellant's brother) told him
about a prior confrontation between Appellant and Darrell Logan, in which
Appellant mistook him for Riggs. In addition, Jeff Fraley (a friend of Appellant)
testified that he had heard through Mike Conn that Appellant would be coming
to Rowan County to kill Riggs .
We find no palpable error in this regard . "In order to demonstrate an
error rises to the level of palpable error [pursuant to RCr 10 .26], the party
claiming palpable error must show a `probability of a different result or [an]
error so fundamental as to threaten a defendant's entitlement to due process of law.' Allen v. Commonwealth, 286 S .W.3d 221, 226 (Ky. 2009) (quoting Martin
v. Commonwealth, 207 S .W.3d 1, 3 (Ky. 2006)) .
The Commonwealth properly introduced the testimony of Gardner and
Fraley for impeachment purposes . See KRE 801(A) (a) (1) . At trial, both Roy and
Mike Conn, the Commonwealth's witnesses, testified that they could not recall
making prior statements indicating that Appellant had threatened Riggs' life. It
is well-settled that "the credibility of any witness, including one's own witness,
may be impeached by showing that the witness has made prior inconsistent
statements ." Wise v. Commonwealth, 600 S.W.2d 470, 472 (Ky. App. 1978)
(emphasis added) . "A statement is inconsistent . . . whether the witness
presently contradicts or denies the prior statement, or whether he claims to be
unable to remember it." Brock v. Commonwealth, 947 S.W.2d 24, 27 (Ky. 1997)
(citing Wise, 600 S.W.2d at 472) .
C . Extreme Emotional Disturbance Instruction
Appellant's final contention is that the trial court erred in failing to
include an instruction pertaining to extreme emotional disturbance (EED) as
an element of the jury's murder instruction . We cannot agree, as the evidence
did not support such an instruction.
A defendant cannot be convicted of intentional murder if he acted under
the influence of extreme emotional disturbance. See generally KRS 507 .020(a) .
This Court has defined EED as "a temporary state of mind so enraged,
inflamed, or disturbed as to overcome one's judgment, and to cause one to act uncontrollably from the impelling force of the extreme emotional disturbance
rather than from evil or malicious purposes ." McClellan, 715 S .W.2d at 468-
69 . It must be noted that:
[EED] is not a mental disease in itself, and an enraged, inflamed, or disturbed emotional state does not constitute an extreme emotional disturbance unless there is a reasonable explanation or excuse therefor, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under circumstances as defendant believed them to be .
Id. at 469 .
In order to justify an instruction for EED, there must be some evidence
suggesting an extreme emotional disturbance, "`thereby affording room for
reasonable doubt."' Greene v. Commonwealth, 197 S .W.3d 76, 81 (Ky. 2006)
(quoting Gall v. Commonwealth, 607 S .W .2d 97, 109 (Ky. 1980)) . Indeed, "[i]f
the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, is found
sufficient, it is for the jury tofind whether or not the defendant acted under
extreme emotional disturbance." Benjamin v. Commonwealth, 266 S.W .3d 775,
782 (Ky. 2006) (emphasis in original) (citing Greene, 197 S .W.3d at 82) . The
effect of such an instruction is that the absence of extreme emotional
disturbance becomes a statutory element of the offense. Id. (citing Greene, 197
S .W. 3d at 81) ; see also Holland v. Commonwealth, 114 S .W. 3d 792, 805 n.16
(Ky. 2003) .
The trial court rightly concluded that the evidence did not support
Appellant's tendered EED instruction. Appellant offered no evidence that he was under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance at any time . While
it is true that he was distraught and perhaps angry over his son's death, 3 there
was no evidence that his judgment was so overcome with emotion that he acted
uncontrollably in shooting and killing Riggs . Indeed, Appellant's own
testimony undercut such an inference, as he claimed that he drove several
hours to Riggs' trailer from Tennessee in order to simply "get answers" and
that, once there, he fired in self-defense . In any event, Riggs' murder occurred
twenty-four days after Brent's death and twenty-two days after Appellant first
suspected that Riggs was to blame, representing, under these circumstances, a
length of time likely dissipating the effect of any initial emotional disturbance
and rendering unreasonable any claimed explanation or excuse . See
Benjamin, 266 S .W .3d at 782-83 (the "provocation adequate to induce an EED
analysis must be sudden and uninterrupted" and "there exists a `subsidiary
inquiry' as to whether there intervened between the provocation and the
homicide a cooling-off period sufficient enough to preclude a conclusion that
the provocation was adequate .") (citations omitted) . Thus, Appellant's claim
lacks merit.
III. Conclusion
Therefore, for the above stated reasons, we hereby affirm Appellant's
conviction and sentence .
All sitting. All concur.
3 Appellant testified that, in his grief, he heard voices, including his son saying, "Daddy, help me." COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Linda Roberts Horsman Department of Public Advocacy 100 Fair Oaks Lane Suite 302 Frankfort, KY 40601
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
Jack Conway Kentucky Attorney General
Perry Thomas Ryan Assistant Attorney General Office of Attorney General Criminal Appellate Division 1024 Capital Center Drive Frankfort, KY 40601-8204