BROOKS V. COM.
CRIMINAL: Double jeopardy
2005-SC-000319-MR.pdf
TO BE PUBLISHED: AFFIRMING; LAMBERT (CUNNINGHAM AND SCOTT CONCUR IN RESULT ONLY, DO NOT BELIEVE THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEYS STATEMENTS CONCERNING REASONABLE DOUBT WERE INAPPROPRIATE, NOR IN VIOLATION OF CALLAHAN, SEE JOHNSON V. COM., 184 S.W. 3D 544 (KY. 2006)
DATE RENDERED: 3/22/2007
SC affirmed Defendant’s convictions for manufacturing methamphetamine, trafficking in methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. Brooks first asserted his convictions for both trafficking and manufacturing the same methamphetamine violated double jeopardy principles because one act – namely, manufacturing methamphetamine – is proscribed by both statutes. SC recounted the legislative history of methampetamine laws in Kentucky and acknowledged a discrepancy in the current scheme stemming from the conflicting definitions of "trafficking". However, interpreting legislative intent, SC found that utilizing the definition in KRS 218A.1431(3), the statute specific to methamphetamine, Brooks’ intent to sell the methamphetamine he had manufactured constituted the separate offenses of manufacturing methamphetamine and trafficking in methamphetamine.
Second, Brooks challenged the admission of notebooks found in his residence listing names and dollar amounts owed. SC held there was no abuse of discretion in admitting these ledgers given a proper foundation was laid regarding Deputy Mills’ training and experience, the location of the ledgers was established and the premises was connected to Brooks. Finally, although the Commonwealth erred in contrasting the phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" with beyond "all doubt", there was no manifest injustice
Digested by Scott Byrd
