IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION
THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER, _ UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS, RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE ACTION. RENDERED: MARCH 22, 2018 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
~upumt ~Inurf nf ~eAN ffi\ [L 2017-SC-000152-MR [Q)~LJ[E't/J2p8/4,'4d.wn,DC
ZACHARY ALLEN GROSS APPELLANT
ON APPEAL FROM BOONE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE RICHARD BRUEGGEMANN, JUDGE CASE NO. 15-CR-00849
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
AFFIRMING
ABoone County jury found Zachary Allen Gross guilty of assault in the
first degree and Gross's punishment was fixed at 20 years' imprisonment. On
appeal, Gross asserts the following four errors: (1) the trial court erred in
allowing impermissible character and prior bad acts evidence; (2) the trial court
allowed improper expert testimony; (3) the trial cou~t barred defense counsel
from effective cro'ss-examination; and (4) the trial court denied defense's
request for ari imperfect self-defense jury instruction. After a thorough review
of the record, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Gross had a romantic relationship with Marilyn Stanley. On September
14, 2015, Gross sent Stanley over 100 text messages and called her 41 times, suspecting infidelity _on the p~rt of Stanley. Gross picked Stanley up from her
mother's home and the two stopped to·get lunch before going to Gross's trailer.
According to Stanley, while eating their lunch, Gross punched Stanley twice on ' '
the left side of her face. Stanley tried to leave but Gross grabbed her around
the waist and carried her into the bedroom. Wh~le being carried to the
bedroom, Stanley pulled a knife from her pocket. Stanley testified she carried
the knife because she was afraid of Gross. , Gross put Stanley on the floor in his bedroom, straddled her, and held
her hands down. Gross's pit bull, Capone, began biting at Stanley's head while
Gross told Stanley to drop the knife.· Capone bit Stanley's ear, causing her to
drop the knife, which Gross picked up. Stanley grabbed her head anq hair and
testified that her hair was stili attached to her head at that point. Stanley
testified that she next remembered Gross kneeling in front of her saying, "Look
at you. You're bald. Now nobody's going to want you. Go look at yourself in
the mirror." A significant portion of Stanley's scalp had· been removed during
the altercation. Stanley went to the bathroom and sat on the toilet but did not
look in· the mirror. When she returned to the bedroom, Gross made Stanley lie
on the fl~or where he storriped on her ribcage twice.
Gross grabbed Stanley's ~calp and hair and put it in a plastic Kroger bag.
Stanley lost 40 percent of her scrup and she·will never be able to regrow hair
where the scalp is missing. Stanley testified that she asked Gross to call 911
but Gross refused, claiming the police would take his dog away. , Gross drove ' \
Stanley towards her mother's house, dr,opping her off down the street. Wheri
' 2 Stanley walked towards her mother's house, she called for help and her mother
called an ambulance.
Sta,nley had multiple surgeries to her scalp and ears and now must wear
a hat in public. Stanley also suffered broken ribs and had an artery cut in her
right arm causing permanent muscular degeneration. Stanley did not tell
detectives at the hospital that Grossr used the • knife• on her or /that he
commanded Capone to· attack her.
Gross recalled a different set of events. According to Gross, the two
accused each other of infidelity at the trailer. Stanley pulled a knife on Gross,
,and he pinned her against the wall to keep her from swinging the knife. Gross
punched Stanley in the face and Capone grabbed at Stanley's leg. Gross tried
to_ kick Capone away, but Stanley ran to the bedroom and Capone followed her.
When Gross entered the bedroom, Stanley was already on the floor with ' Capone attacking her head. Gross tried to shield ·stanley from the dog, and
when Stanley finally dropped.her knife, Gross put the dog in the bedroom
closet. Gross saw Stanley's scalp was torn off and told her that she needed to
go to the hospital. Stanley did not want to get the police involved because she
was afraid they would take the dog.
Gross carried Stanley into the bathroom and sat her on the toilet. Gross
tried to call 911, but Stanley fold him. not to. Capone got out of the closet and
~alked into the bathroom. Gross tried to kick him away, but Stanley said not
to discipline the dog. Gross said he never used the knife nor commanded
Capone to attack Stanley.
3 At trial, Dr. William John Kitzmiller offered expert testimony for the
Commonwealth. Dr. Kitzmiller treated Stanley's scalp wound and he testified
to the severity of the injury and the multiple surgeries endurec;l by Stanley. He
testified that the injury to Stanley's scalp was mo~e consistent with an injury
caused by a sharp object than a dog bite.
The jury determined that Gross committed first-degree assault and
recommended a sentence of twenty years' imprisonment. The trial court
sentenced Gross according to the jury's recommendation. Gross now appeals
as a matter of right. Additional facts shall be set forth below as necessary.
II. ANALYSIS I
A. The trial court properly admitted prior bad acts evidence.
Gross's first allegation of error involves the trial court allowing the
Commonwealth to present prior bad acts evidence via text messages, Facebook
messages, and witness testimony. Gross properly pre~erved the claim of error
regarding the text and Facebook messages and Stanley's testimony.
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible fo prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible: (1) if offered for some other purpose, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity,. or absence ;of mistake or accid~nt; or (2) If so inextricably intertwined with other evidence essential to the case that separation of the two (2) could not be accomplished without serious adverse effect on the offering party.
Kentucky Rule of Evidence (KRE) 404(b).
"The trial judge has sufficient discreti~p. to admit evidence of
uncharged bad acts if it is relevant, probative and the potential for
4 prejudice does not outweigh the probative value of such evidence."
Parker v. Commonwealth, 952 S.W.2d 209, 213 (Ky. 1997). This Court
has held that evidence of prior, similar acts of abuse against the same
victim of the alleged crime is "almost always admissible" under KRE
404(b) to prove the defendant's "intent, plan, or absence of mistake or
accident." Dant v. Commonwealth, 258 S.W.3d 12, 19 (Ky. 2008) (citing
Noel v. Commonwealth, 76 S.W.3d 923, 931 (Ky. 2002)).
The standard of review of a trial court's evidentiary rulings is
abuse of discretion. Clark v. Commonwealth, 223 S.W.3d 90, 95 (Ky.
2007). "The test for abuse of discretion is whether . the trial judge's
decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound . ( legal principles." Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Thompson, 11 S.W.3d
575, 581 (Ky. 2000) '(citing.Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941,
945 (Ky. 1999)).
To be admissible prior bad acts evidenbe, the e:Vidence must fall
within one of the exceptions listed in KRE 404(b). Here, the .
Commonwealth sought to introduce evidence of Gross's prior acts· of
violence against Stanley to show Gross's motive and intent to commit the
crime charged and to show the· absence of mistake or accident.
Text and Facebook messages.
The Comm~nwealth sought tO introduce text and Facebook
messages between Gross and Stanley. These messages showed that
5 Stanley was afraid of Gross,1 Gross threatened to kill Stanley,2 Gross hit
·Stanley on a regular basis, 3 and that Gross choked Stanley on the
ground.4
This Court agrees with the trial court and the Commonwealth that
this evidence was admissible to show Grosi;;'s intent.
Where the issue addressed is the defendant's intent to commit the offense charged, the relevancy of the extrinsic offense derives from the defendant's indulging himself in the same state of mind in the perpetration of both · the extrinsic and charged offenses. The reasoning is that because the defendant had unlawful intent in the extrinsic offense, it is less likely that he had lawful intent in the present offense.
Walker v. Commonwealth, 52 S.W.3d 533, 537 (Ky. 2001) (citing United
States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 911 (5th. Cir. 1978), cerl. denied, 440
U.S. 920 (1979)).
· i I'm sorry that I scare u often I'm tryin to not niake fast or quick moves around u or toward u that may scare u I hate hate hate that u r scared of me cuz u shouldn't have to b scared of the orie u love but I understand why u r scared and I don't blame u BUT I promise ima prove to u th~t u don't have to b scared anymore and I am here to . protect u and. give u all that u need an everthin u need and then some I love u with all my heart.· Com. Ex. 18: Text message from Gross to Stanley. 2 I do love you. !meant ever thing I said. But how many times you gonna threaten to kill me before you really do. I quit heroin because I don't want to die. And I don't want to worry about you thinking shit up in your head and snapping on me.· You have hit me at least every other week since the firstpme. And broke what little material things I do have. And you hurt me. You wouldn't do the things you've done to me if you really cared about me. You sayyou put everyone'shappiness befo.re your own. But as far as I'm concerned .. you don't. And I don't think you'll ever be concerned aboll.t my happiness. I want to feel safe and secure. And that's gone. Com. Ex. 29: Facebook message sent from Stanley to Gross. 3 See Com. Ex. 29, ill.' 2. 4 Good. Don't. And yeah .. Just slap me punch me throw be down stairs down · to the ground choke me out and break my phone and my car and try to tell me about work and the wedding to fuck with me an,d Lacey and Amanda and whoever else. And I still fucking called to see you knowing you were leaving for Vegas. And yea. That is I
so right. Com. Ex. 32: Facebook message sent from Stanley to Gross. (While Gross only quotes a portion of this message in his brief, the. entire message is provided here.)
6 Once determined to fall within an exception listed in KRE 404(b),
the prior bad acts evidence must satisfy the three-prong test described in . I
Bell v. Commonwealth, 875 S.W.2d 882, 889-91 (Ky. 1994), which
analyzes the prop~sed evidence in terms of (1) relevance, (2)
probativeness, and (3) its prejudicial effect. Driver V; Commonwealth, 361
S.W.3d 877, 883 (Ky. 2012). "With respect to relevance, ·the·assessing
court asks, is the evidence relevant 'for some purpose other than to prove
the criminal disposition of the accused?" Aside from showing criminal
propensity, that is, the extrinsic act evidence must bear materially on an
element of the offense or on some other fact actually in dispute." Jenkins
v. Commonwealth, 496 s·.W.3d 435, 457 (Ky. 2016) (emphasis in original)
(internal citations omitted).
The messages introduced at trial were relevant to the material
issues of Grass's intent to commit the assault and to show the absence of
accident. Despite Grass's assertion.s that the messages were not relevant
because they did not establish temporal proximity to the alleged assault
in this case, the messages were very close in time to the alleged assault.
Commonwealth's exhibit 18 occurred on September 11, 2015; exhibit 29
occurred on July 26, 2015; and exhibit 32 occurred on Au~st 20, 2015.
The alleged· assault occurred on September 14, 2015. This Court
believes the proximity was close enough to satisfy the relevancy
requirement.
·7 Gross argued that his dog, Capone, wa~ protecting him and
attacked Stanley. At trial the Commonwealth was tasked with proving
an actual crime occurred. This Court has long held that prior acts
evidence can be admitted to show the absence of accidents and we.
believe the messages admitted into evidence.are relevant to show Gross
intended to commit the assault.
The second prong looks to the probativeness orthe evidence. The ' '-- prior acts evidence1ccurred within a few.months before the alleged
assault and occurred at the same place' (Grass's home). The evidence of
Grass's past violence against Stanley is probative of the assertion that
Gross acted intentionally to assault Stanley on September 14, 2015.
This Court finds the evidence was admitted for other purposes than to
prove Grass's propensity_ to commit criminal acts.
The final prong to be addressed is whether the probative· value of
the evidence was outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice. The
messages were not unduly emphasized, and Gross had complete
opportunity to contest the messages through cross-examination. "Undue
prejudice is most often found where there is a risk that the evidence ·,.
might produce a decision grounded in emotion rather than reason or.
where the evidence might be used for an improper purpose." Wilson v. " Commonwealth, 438 S.W.3d 345, 350 (Ky. 2014)(internal citations
I
s Moseley v. Commonwealth, 960 S.W.2d. 460, 461 (Ky. 1997) ("Evidence th~t Appellant had abused his victimron prior occasions was relevant to prove the absence . of accident or mistake when he subsequently killed her.")
8 ('.
omitted)'. The prior act evidence in this case was far less severe than the
acts· for which Gross was ,charg~d and tried. Such prior act evidence is
not of the caliber to "produce a decision~ grounp.ed in. emotion rather than
reason." Thus, we find the risk of undue prejudice to have been
mitigated by the probative value of such evidence. The trial court's
decision to admit the messages was not an abuse of discretion.
Marilyn Stanley's Testimony.
The Commonwealth sought to have Stanley testify to an incident in . L
July 2015, in which Gross choked her on his bed, causing Stanley to.lose
consciousness and urinate on herself. Stanley was also prepared to
testify that Gross had referenced the choking incident during the assault
in the current case. The Commonwealth argued that it sought to
introduce this testit:?ony to prove the element, of intent.
Gross maintains the testimony is not relevant because Gross did
· not choke Stanley during the incident in the present case, Stanley drew
no connection between the choking episode and the current assault, and
Stanley's testimony .did not make it any more probable that Gross caused
the injuries to Stanley's scalp. Gross further argued that the evidence is
not probative because it did not1ead to an arrest and it is unduly
prejudicial because it only emphasized Gross's.violent chEl_racter. We
disagree.
As stated above, this prior choking incident is relevant to show
Gross's intent to inflict injury upon Stanley on September 14, 2015; it is
9 probative in that both incidents occurred in Grass's home and in his
bedroom; and the testimony was not so inflammatory as to elicit an.
emotional response from the jury.
·stanley's Mother's Testimony.
Stanley's mother, Linda, testified about her call to 911 after
Stanley returned from Grass's trailer. Linda told the dispatcher that
Gross had ·hurt Stanley even though Stanley had not yet told her mother
what had happened. Linda also gave the dispatcher Grass's address and
license plate number saying she knew something like this would
eventually happen I and. she would have to call 911.
This issue is unpreserved aild Gross requests palpable error
review.
A palpable error whiCh affects the substantial rights of a party may be considered· by the court on motion for a new trial or by an appellate court on appeal, even though insufficiently raised or preserved for review, and appropriate relief may be granted upon a determination that manifest injustice has resulted from the errcir.
Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) ~0.26~
A palpable error must be so grave in nature that if it were uncorrected, it would seriously affect the fairness of the proceedings. Thus, what a palpable error analysis boils down to is whether the ·reviewing court \ believes there is a substantial possibiljty that the result in the case would have ·been different without the error. If no, the error cannot_be palpable.
Doneghy v. Commonwealth, 410 S.W.3d 95, 106 (Ky. 2013) (citing Brewer v.
Commonwealth, 206 S.W.3d 343, 349 (Ky. 2006)).
We find no error in the trial court's admission of Linda's testimony, let
alone palpable error. As stated previously, prior acts may be admissible if so 10 0
intertwined with other evidence in the case. KRE 404(b)(2). "KRE 404(b)(2)
allows. the Commonwealth to present a complete, unfragmented picture of the
crime and investigation[,] incl_uding a picture of the circumstances sur~ounding
how the crime was discovered." Kerr v. Commonwealth, 400 S.W.3d 250, 261
·(Ky. 2013)(internal citations omitted).
"This exception to the general exclusionary rule allows for the
introduction of prior bad acts when relevant to providing context to the crime ( ·being tried becau.se[:]
the acts that constitute crimes cannot be understood without at least some reference to acts, events, or conditions that lead up to •them ... even though not inher:ent in or necessary to the crime ... . [W]itnesses cannot convey what they know to the trier of fact without making at least some reference to acts, events, or conditions th~t are a natural part of a nar,rative without referring . - to at least some tings that are not essential in proving the crime itself. . . . Hence[,] it becomes ;reasonable to speak of a "complete story" rule[;] and the system allows proof of what amounts to uncharged crimes[, ] when these are necessary in telling and understanding the story of the charged crimes."
Id. at 261-62. (internal citations omitted).
Linda's .testimony was relevant in understanding the complete crime.
Stanley was at her mother's home the morning of September 14, 2015. She
returned to her mother's home after sustaining her injuries. Linda called 911.
Although this evidence was prejudicial, most evidence sought to be introduced
by the Commonwealth is prejudicial to some degree. Grass's trial covered four
days. Linda's testimony, to which ~ross objected, consisted of less than 2 . / . minutes qf those four days.6 Further, Gross had ample opportunity to cross-
6 Tii~ record, January 30, 2017, 1:58:00-1:59:16 p.m. 11 examine Linda. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the .
evidence.
Gross finally contends that because he received the maximum ·
sentence imposed by the verdict, prejudice from the above admitted /
evidence must be presumed. As we have said before,
this argument confuses different senses of the word 'prejudice' and different standards of review. Had the trial court erred by admitting the prior-act testimony, the effect of that testimony would have been relevant to a consideration of whether the error was harmless, say, or palpable. Generally, however, properly admitted evidence simply has the effect that it has; it does not become improperly admitted because the jury happens to give it weight. The actual prejudice that pertains to harmless""error and to palpable-error analysis should not be confused with the potential for undue prejudice that bears upon a court's admissibility ruling under KRE 402 and 404.
Jenkins, 496 S.W.3d at n. 20. (emphasis in original).
B. Dr. William John Kitzmiller was qualified to give an expert opinion about the cause of Stanley's injury.
"If scientific, technical, or other specialized .knowledge will assist the trier
of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness
qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, ' '
may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise . . . ." KRE 702. The
decision to qualify a witness as an expert rests in the sound discretion of the
trial court. McDaniel v. Commonwealth, 415 S.W.3d 643, 655 (Ky. 2013). ' '
"Presumably, jurors do not need assistance in the form of an expert's opinion
that the defendant is guilty or not guilty. However, they usually do need the
assistance of a medical expert in determining the cause of a physical condition
in order to under.stand the evidence and determine the ultimate fact in issue." 12 Stringer v. Commonwealth, 956 S.W.2d 883, 889-90 (Ky. 1997) (citing KRE 401;
KRE 702)).
An expert's testimony must be relevant, must relate to a material issue in
the case, and the expert's kno~ledge must aid the trier of fact. Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 591-92 (1993). The expert
testimony should be based upon personal observation, examinati~n, and
testing. See Burton v. Commonwealth, 300 S.W.3d 126, 141 (Ky. 2009).
Dr. Kitzmiller was the plastic surgeon who treated Stanley's injuries. The
trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing in which Dr. Kitzmiller testified to
his education and experience and to his treatment of Stanley. Dr. Kitzmiller·
had treated patients with scalp injuries; including over 200 ,patients with scalp
injuries due to dog attacks. One of those 200 patients lost a large amount of ' testified to treating hundreds of general knife scalp. Dr. Kitzmiller also
wounds, although he had r:1.ot treated a ~calping wound caused by a knife. The
trial court qualified Dr. Kitzmiller to testify to Stanley's injuries, the treatment
he provided, and his opinion on causation.
At trial, Dr. Kitzmiller stated that although he could not be certain, in his
personal opinion Stanley's injuries favored a sharp object rather than a dog
bite. Gross argues that because Dr. Kitzmiller had never treated a scalping
caused by a knife he was _unqualified. to comm~nt on the causation of Stanley's
. scalp injury. Gross's argument is unpersuasive.
Dr. Kitzmiller had significant experience treating both dog bite and knife
injuries. His testimony describing the straight nature of the edges ahd the
13 disruption of Stanley's scalp u;ridoubtedly stems-from his ext_ensive experience ' treating similar injuries. The decision to qualify an expert is not ~ abstract
decision but rather whether the witness's qualification,s provide the necessary
foundation to respond to the specific question asked. Kemper v. Gordon, 272
S.W.3d 146, 154 (Ky. 2008). This Court finds Dr. Kitzmiller had sufficient
qualifications, schooling, training, and experience to be qualified as an expert.
Courts . will reject expert testimony where ' it is based on rank speculation.
Wright and Gold, Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence§ 6264. Dr.
Kitzmiller's -. testimony was not rank speculation, , even though .it was equivocal, . . .
in some aspects. This "equivocation goes to the weight of the evidence, not the
admissibility. As such, this Court finds no abuse of discretion.
C. The trial court did not err when it prohibited Gross from asking Marci Adkins about mishandling evidence in a prior case.
Marci Adkins, with the Kentucky State Police Central Lab, tested blood
stains in Grass's trailer, the knife, a shoe, a pair of shorts, a cup, Stanley's (
fingernail clippings, and buccal swabs taken from both Gross and Stanley.
Adkins' testimony at trial was that there was no foreign DNA found on
Stanley's fingernails .
. Gross asked Adkins if she was familiar with the case of Commonwealth v.
Barbour, and Adkins responded affirmatively. The Commonwealth objected
when Gross asked Adkins what happen~d in that case. The Commonwealth
claimed irrelevancy to the present case. Grass's counseldefended by saying
Adkins . lost evidence . in the Barbour case and that was relevant to ·her
credibility. The trial court informed counsel that he could ask about the 14 Barbour case if there was anything to suggest a misreporting of results, a '\.
mischaracterization of analysis or results, or anything to challenge Adkins'
testimony in the present case.
The trial court sustained the Commonwealth's objection to any other
inquiry into the Barbour case because it felt it was improper impeachment that
would o.nly confuse the jury. Gross maintained his theory of self-defense.
Stanley attacked Gross, Gross acted in self-defen.se, and then Capone attacked "' Stanley. Adkins' testimony regarding no foreign DNA under Stanley's nails
undermined ·Gross's defense because it tended to show Stanley did not put her
hands on Gross. According to Gross, he was entitled to question Adkins
. credibility before .the jury.
"Cross-examination is a criminal defendant's fundamental right
protected by the confrontation and due process provisions of both the
Kentucky and United States Constitutions." Rogers v. Commonwealth, 366
S.W.3d 446, 454 (Ky. 2012)(citing Commonwealth v. Maddox, 955 S.W.2d 718
(Ky. 1997)). However, it is well established "that the right to cross-examination
is not absolute and the trial court retains the discretion to set limitations on
the scope and subject: '['f]he Confrontation Clause. guarantees an opportunity
for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in
whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish'." Davenport v.
Commonwealth, 177 S.W.3d 763, 767-68 (Ky. 2005) (citing Delaware v. Van.
Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 (1986) (emphasis in original)). Trial courts retain
wide latitude to impose reasonable limits on cross-examination "based on
15 concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the
issues, ~he witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally
relevant." Id .. at 768 (internal citations omitted). (
When the scope of cross-examination is on a collateral issue, the trial
court must first determine whether the subject of cros,s-examination is relevant
"and then determine whether the probative value is outweighed by the
prejudicial effect." Commonwealth v. Maddox, 955 S.W.2d 718, 721 (Ky. 1997)
(internal citations omitted). When the cross-examination is .of one other than .
the defendant, greater latitude is generally allowed. Id. (citing Byrd v. ' . ' Commonwealth, 825 S.W.2d 272 (Ky. 1992); Sanborn v. Commonwealth, 754 - '
S.W.2d 534 (Ky. 1988); and Barrett v. Commonwealth, 608 S~W.2d 374 (Ky.
1980)). "Nevertheless, a connection must be established between the cross-
examination proposed to be undertaken and the facts in evidence. A defendant
is not at liberty to present unsupported. theories in the guise of cross-
examination and invite the juryAo speculate as to some cause other than one
supported by the evidence." Id. (emphasis added).
There was no evidence presented to support a theory.of the mishandling
of evidence or a break in. the chain of custody of evidence. Because the
proposed cros.s-examination involved a collateral matter, this Court finds that
it did not satisfy relevancy requirements. Further, we agree with the trial court
that this testimony, had it been elicited, would have likely confused the jury-.
This is the type of evidence the Maddox Court advised against - evidence that
16 would have invited the jury to speculate as _to causation. We find no abuse of
discretion in the trial court's prohibition of this .cross-examination.
D. The Defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on imperfect self- defense. - ·
The jury found Gross-guilty of assault in the first degree believing that he.
c~aused serious physical injury to Stanley using a knife and that he was not
privileged to act in self-protecti.on. The jury also found Gross guilty of assault
in the first degree believing that he caused serious physical injury to Stanley ~
using his dog and that he was not privileged to act in self-protection. The trial
. ' court qualified each assault instruction with a general self-defense provision. - . .
Gross's final argument is that the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the
jury on imperfect self-defense. Defense coun~el tendered proposed instructions
for second-degree assault and fourth-degree assault, both containing theories
of imperfect self-defense. ,,.. The two second-degree· assault instructions referred to the infliction of
serious physical injury through intentionally punching and/ or ~eking and by
. wantonly using his dog to cause injury, respectively. ·The two fourth-degree
assault instructions referred to the infliction of serious physical injury through
intentionally punching and/or·kicking and by recklessly using his dog to cause
injury, respectively. . . ' . This Court finds Gross was not entitled to an instruction on imperfect
self-defense. First, Grass's version o_f events does not support the giving of
such an instruction. Here, Gross testified that Stanley attacked him in the.
17 kitchen and he reacted in self-defense. Stanley ran to the bedroom and when
Gross arrived, Capone was already attacking Stanley's head .
. Under Grass's own version of events, he never inflicted injury to s·tanley's
scalp either through the use of a knife or in the use of his dog. Because Gross
maintained. that he did not scalp Stanley, the evidence 4id not support a jury_
instruction claiming Gross was mistakei:i in his belief in the need to scalp
Stanley to protect himself. The trial court does not have a duty to instruct on a
theory with no evidentiary foundation. Houston v. Commonwealth, 975 S.W.2d.
925, 929 (Ky. 1998) ..
Further, taking Gr9ss's recollection of the facts as true, once Stanley ran
into the bedroom, any further belief of danger on the part of Gross was
dispelled. Upon further altercation with Stanley in tl).e bedroom, Gross became
an initi;;tl aggressor. A defendant loses the justification of self-defense if the ·
defendant was the initial aggressor. KRS 503.060. Therefore, even if this
Court was to find that the evidence supported the giving of an imperfect self-
defense instruction, such error would be harmless because the instruction
would also have to be qualified wit? an initial aggressor instruction, which the
jury was also presented with. Any error in failing to give an instruction is
deemed harmless as we cannot see the outcome of this case being any
different.
Second, any error of failing to include an imperfect self-defense
instruction in the intentional instructions. of assault second arid assault fourth
was harmless because Gross was not convicted of .either crime. These
18 instructions allowed the jury to convict Gross of intentionally inflicting serious
physical injury upon Stanley by means of punching and/ or kicking. Because
Gross was not convicted under these statutes, this Court will not posit ~
different outcome had the imperfect self-defense instruction been provided:
Finally, we cannot say the outcome would have been different had Gross
received the instruction in regard to the wanton (assault second) and reckless
(assault fourth) assault charges. We reiterate that imperfect self-defense does
not provide for complete exoneration, but instead allows a jury to convict a '\ defendant of a lesser offense, i.e., one for which wantonness or recklessness is
the culpable mental state. Elliott v. Commonwealth, 976 S.W.2d 416, 420 (Ky.
1998). Because the jury found Gross to have acted intentionally and without
any justification, we do not find any error in the failure to give the imperfect
self-defense instruction to the lesser included offenses.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Boone Circuit Court is
affirmed.
All sitting. All concur.
19 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Steven Jared Buck Department of Public Advocacy
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
Andy Beshear . Attorney General of Kentucky
William· Robert Long Jr. , ·Assistant Attorney General