Preview:

RENDERED: JANUARY20, 2005 TO BE PUBLISHED
.SiMurewr (90urf of
2002-SC-0842-MR
I-A71
LARRY RAMSEY APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM PULASKI CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE DANIEL J. VENTERS, JUDGE 2001-CR-0109 &2001-CR-0219
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
OPINION OF THE COURT
AFFIRMING
A Pulaski Circuit Court jury convicted Larry Ramsey of first-degree wanton endangerment, DUI (4th offense), and driving with a suspended license (3~d offense). He was also found guilty of being a first-degree persistent felony offender. He was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment on each of the counts, with two of the sentences to run consecutively, for a total of twenty years' imprisonment. He therefore appeals as a matter of right, arguing that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction of first-degree wanton endangerment; and (2) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of "prior bad acts." We affirm Appellant's convictions in full.
FACTS
We begin with a brief description of the events that led to Appellant's convictions. On the evening of January 15, 2001, Appellant was embroiled in a heated argument with his girlfriend, Tammy Sullivan. He eventually left in his
pickup truck with their ten-year-old son, Larry Lee Sullivan, as a passenger. Ms.
Sullivan went to a nearby store to call the police. She told the police that Appellant had been drinking that day and was out driving with their son. Sergeant Cross of the Pulaski County Sheriffs Department responded to the call and began searching for Appellant's truck. At a four-way intersection, he observed a pickup truck that matched Ms. Sullivan's description. The vehicle stopped at the stop sign and then suddenly took off at a high rate of speed. As Sergeant Cross attempted to catch up with it, the truck slowed down, turned its headlights off and eventually stopped on the side of the road near a fence. Both Appellant and his son were in the truck.
After being pulled over, Appellant explained that he had been arguing with Ms. Sullivan and that he "was trying to get away from her for a while." When asked whether he had been drinking, Appellant indicated that he had drunk some beer earlier in the day. Some beer cans were found on the floor of the vehicle.' Sergeant Cross also testified that Appellant appeared drunk, smelled of alcohol, had bloodshot eyes and his speech was slurred. Appellant was placed under arrest.
ANALYSIS
I . First-Degree Wanton Endanaerment
Appellant first claims that he was entitled to a directed verdict as to the wanton endangerment charge, alleging that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. This issue is preserved by his trial counsel's motion for a directed verdict at the close ofthe Commonwealth's case in chief and again at
' Sergeant Cross testified at trial that he saw an open can of beer at Appellant's feet and there was a partial 12-pack of beer at his feet as well.
the end of the defense case. In Commonwealth v. Benham, Ky., 816 S.W.2d
186, 187 (1991), this Court states the rule as follows:
On motion for directed verdict, the trial court must draw all fair and reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the Commonwealth. If the evidence is sufficient to induce a reasonable juror to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, a directed verdict should not be given. For the purpose of ruling on the motion, the trial court must assume that the evidence for the Commonwealth is true, but reserving to the jury questions as to the credibility and weight to be given to such testimony.
On appellate review ofthe denial of a directed verdict, the test is whether, "under the evidence as a whole, it would be clearly unreasonable for a jury to find guilt, only then the defendant is entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal." Commonwealth v. Sawhill, Ky., 660 S.W.2d 3, 4-5 (1983) (quoting Trowel v. Commonwealth, Ky., 550 S.W.2d 530 (1977)).
This appeal requires us to examine whether the jury, based on the evidence presented in the case, could reasonably believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant is guilty of first-degree wanton endangerment, as defined by KRS

Download 2002-sc-000842-mr.pdf

Kentucky Law