Dennis Sills v. Commonwealth of Kentucky ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                                    RENDERED: AUGUST 24, 2017
    NOT TO.BE PUBLISHED
    ~uprtttt~ ~fond nf ~f!l~                                      ffi\(L
    -          .
    2016-SC-000292-MR         [5) IA~ [E ii O)i&,J tJ J.2,~ '4J_"'°,,, De
    DENNIS SILLS                                                                APPELLANT
    ON APPEAL FROM CHRISTIAN CIRCUIT COURT
    v.                  HONORABLE ANDREW C. SELF, JUDGE
    NO. 13-CR-00675
    COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                                    APPELLEE
    MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
    AFFIRMING
    A Christian Count.Y jury found Dennis Sills guilty of murder. Consistent
    with the jury's sentencing recommendations, the trial court fixed his sentence
    at thirty-five years' imprisonment.
    ·Sills now appeals as a matter of right, Kentucky Constitution§ l 10(2)(b),
    arguing .that the trial court erred by admitting improper evidence of his prior
    · bad acts. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court ...
    I. BACKGROUND
    Dennis Sills and Lisa Roach began dating in 2009. After about a year
    together, the two began to fight, and their relationship was on-again-off-again.
    .                                                                     .
    .Over the_ next three years, Sills physically abused Roach and stated on multiple
    occasions that he would kill her. In August 2013, Roach fled the Hopkinsville
    I   ,
    .                    .             '
    mobile home that she and her two children shared with Sills and moved to
    Mississippi. Two months later, on October 11, 2013, she returned in order to
    transfer          ~itle   of property that remained in Kentucky. That night, Sills's
    ·~
    neighbor, Phillis Gardner, heard Sills yell, "I need your help, Miss Phillis. I
    need you, you've got to help me!" When she went to his mobile home and
    asked hirri wh.at was wrong, he replied,'"I've done shot Lisa."
    Gardner testified that when she and. her daughter arrived at Sills's
    mobile home, Sills told them, "Well, she bit me," and showed the women                 a bite
    mark on his chest and a bloody bite· mark on his wrist. Gardner approached'
    ·Sills's front door, where she saw Lisa Roach's body lying on the-floor. Gardner
    told her daughter to call 911. While waiting for emergency services, Sills
    admitted to Gardner and her. daughter that he shot Roach with his rifle. Sills
    also left multiple messages on his employer's answering machine admitting
    that he had killed Roach. When police arrived; they fo1:1nd Roach dead with
    bullet wounds to the back of her head, her chest, and her right flank. Upon
    searching the mobile home, police found a .22 caliber rifle and two .22 caliber
    "spent" shell casings. This was the weapon determined to have been used by
    Sills to shoot Roach. No other weapons were discovered at the scene. Sills was
    charged with murder, and these proceedings commenced. We set forth
    additional facts as necessary below.
    2
    II. ANALYSIS
    . A. The trial court did not err by admitting evidence of Sills's prior .
    instances of domestic violence.
    Prior to trial, the Commonwealth provided notice to Sills's counsel,
    pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Evidence (KRE) 404(c), that it intended to
    introduce KRE 404(b) evidence of other crimes, wrongs, and acts. KRE 404(b)
    provides, in pertinent part:
    Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissibl~ to prove the
    character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It
    may, however, be admissible:
    (1) If off~red for some other purpose, such as proof of motive,
    opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or
    absence of mistake or accident; . . . .
    At a pretrial conference,
    .      .
    Sills objected to all of the Commonwealth's
    .       KRE 404(b)
    evidence, and the trial court overruled that objection. We review the trial
    court's application of KRE 404(b) for an abuse of discretion. Driver v.
    Commonwealth, 361S.W.3d877, 883 (Ky. 2012).
    The Commonwealth introduced evidence at trial that, at some· time
    during their relationship--which began in 2009 and e:qded in .2013-Sills:
    grabbed Roach by the arm, leaving bruises; 1 grabbed her by the throat; broke a
    beer bottle on a table in front of Roach to scare her; tripped Roach and v~rbally
    abused her; and jumped on Roach, while holding a gun to her head. Sills
    argues, based on this Court's decision in Barnes v. Commonwealth, 
    794 S.W.2d 1
      At trial, only this instance was dated, having occurred on New Year's Eve,
    2010..                                   .
    3
    165 (Ky. 1990), that the trial court's decision to admit the preceding evidence
    was in error.
    In Barnes, this Court held that the trial court erred by admitting
    evidence that the defendant had hit his wife_ seven years before killing her, and.
    had grab bed her and dragged her down an alley four years before killing her'.
    
    Id. at 169
    .. There, we reasoned that "[a]cts of physical violence, remote in time,
    prove little with regard to intent, motive, plan or scheme; have little relevance
    . other than establishment of a general disposition to commit such acts; and the
    prejudice far outweighs any probative value in such evidence." 
    Id. The present
    matter is distinguishable from Barnes. As we noted in Driver; "Barnes does not
    suggest that there is any demarcation point by which remoteness is to be
    
    judged." 361 S.W.3d at 884
    . Thus, the fact that Sills's prior acts    occurre~
    sometime during the four years before he murdered Roach is not dispositive.
    In order for evidence to be admissible at trial, it must be relevant. KRE
    402. Evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make the existence of any
    fact that is of consequence to the determination bf the action more probable or
    less probable than it would be without the evidence." KRE 401. "Although
    relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially
    outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice .... " KRE 403. Sills's and
    Roach's entire relationship lasted four years, and the abusive behavior
    occurred throughout the last three years of their relationship. Sills's defense
    .                  .
    was that he acted iri self-defense. Evidence of his abuse of Roach was, thus,
    relevant to show intent and that he did not act in self-defense. Because these
    4
    acts of abuse occurred relatively close in time to the murder, and at least one
    _involved threatening use of a gun, we carinot say, as a matter of law, that the
    prejudicial effect outweighed the evidence's probative value. Therefore,we hold
    that the trial court's admission_ of evidence. of Sills's prior instances of domestic
    violence was not erroneous.
    B. The ·trial court did not err by admitting evidence of threats Sills made
    to Roach.          ·
    In addition to the above-noted instances of domestic violence, the
    Commonwealth elicited testimony that Sills, had threatened to kill Roach on
    numerous occasions. At a New Year's Eve party in 2010, Sills stated.that, "One_
    day, I'm going to have to kill that bitch." Roach's son testified that he heard
    Sills tell his mother, "I'm going to have to kill you one day." In another
    instance, Sills told Roach that he would kill her ifshe ever left him.
    "Generally, evidence of prio! threats and animosity of the defendant
    against the victim is admissible as evidence of motive, intent or identity.~ ... "
    Davis v. Common1:1Jealth, 
    147 S.W.3d 709
    , 722 (Ky. 2004). "It has long been a
    rule in this jurisdiction tha~ threats against the victim of a crime are probative
    of the defendant's motive and intent to commit the crime .... " Sherroan v.
    Commonwealth, 
    142 S.W.3d 7
    , 18 (Ky. 2004). We noted above ·that Sills
    claimed that he acted in self-defense. As with evidence of physical abuse,
    evidence of Sills's prior threats demonstrated intent and was relevant to      refut~
    his claim of self-defense .. An analysis ur:ider_ KRE 404(b) "will be left to the trial
    '
    court's sound discretion depending upon the facts of the individual case."
    
    Driver, 361 S.W.3d at 884
    . We discern no abuse of that discretion, and hold
    that the trial court's ruling was
    /,
    not in error.
    III. CONCLUSION
    . For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Christian Circuit Court in
    this matter is affirmed;
    All sitting. All concur.
    COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
    Robert Chung-Hua Yang
    ·Assistant Public Advocate
    · Department of Pliblic Advocacy
    COUNS~L     FOR APPELLEE:
    Andy Beshear
    Attorney General of Kentucky
    Micah Brandon Roberts
    Assistant Attorney General
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2016 SC 000292

Filed Date: 10/27/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/2/2017