Brand v. Commonwealth, 939 S.W.2d 358 (Ky. Ct. App. 1997)

Cases | Brand v. Commonwealth, 939 S.W.2d 358 (Ky. Ct. App. 1997) | 2018

The defendant pled guilty to burglary in the third degree and to harassing communications. Prior to sentencing, the Commonwealth submitted victim impact statements detailing the victims’ losses and the emotional impact of the crime. The appellant objected to admission of the statements and moved the trial judge to recuse herself, alleging that her knowledge of the contents of the statements was prejudicial. The trial court sustained the defendant’s motion to strike the statements but denied the motion for recusal. However, at sentencing the trial court permitted the victims to testify regarding the emotional and financial impact of the crimes. On appeal, the defendant claimed that: (1) the trial court erred in overruling the motion for recusal; and (2) the victims’ testimony should not have been admitted during the sentencing phase because Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 421.500 does not mention third-degree burglary in its definition of “victim.” The appellate court held that: (1) the trial judge did not err in refusing to recuse herself. The court excluded the evidence to which the defendant objected, and the sentence imposed was in accord with the Commonwealth’s recommendation pursuant to the plea agreement; and (2) nothing suggested that the trial court was without discretion to allow those injured as a result of lesser crimes from testifying as to the impact of the crime on their lives or from submitting impact statements. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying probation because the defendant’s background and victim testimony are the most revealing evidence the trial court can consider when deciding the defendant’s fate.