JAMES W. STEADMAN, SR. v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: July 16, 1999; 10:00 a.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO. 1997-CA-002395-MR
NO. 1998-CA-000717-MR
JAMES W. STEADMAN, SR.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE HUGH ROARK, JUDGE
INDICTMENT NO. 96-CR-00107
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
REVERSING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
GARDNER, HUDDLESTON and JOHNSON, Judges.
HUDDLESTON, Judge.
These are consolidated appeals by James W.
Steadman, Sr., from his conviction for bail jumping and from the
denial of his motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to Ky. R.
Crim. Proc. (RCr) 11.42.
In 1993, Steadman was indicted and arraigned on a charge
of theft by failure to make required disposition of property over
$300.00, a class D felony.1
Subsequently, Steadman posted a
$5,500.00 cash bond and was released from custody.
1
This charge was later dismissed.
At
a
pre-trial
conference
on
September
28,
1993,
Steadman’s attorney, William Radigan, explained to the court that
Steadman was not present because he was in the intensive care unit
at Jewish Hospital recovering from a stroke.
Steadman appeared at
a subsequent court hearing on October 12, 1993.
Radigan explained
to the court that Steadman at that time had no recollection of the
events concerning the offense of which he was charged and did not
even know who the complainant was in the case.
A video record of
that hearing indicates Steadman appeared weak and disoriented at
that time.
The pre-trial conference was continued until November
23, 1993.
On that date, Radigan did not appear because he was
recovering from surgery.
Steadman’s wife, who appeared at the
November hearing, answered most of the questions directed to
Steadman.
trouble
She explained to the court that her husband “still had
understanding
things.”
The
continued until January 25, 1994.
pre-trial
conference
was
Both Steadman and Radigan
attended the January 25, 1994, pre-trial conference. Radigan again
advised the court that his client had lost his memory of the events
in question and was unable to assist counsel in preparing for
trial.
Radigan requested open discovery to compensate for his
client’s incapacity.
The judge stated that he would take the
motion for open discovery under submission.
A trial date was set
for May 26, 1994.
On February 19, 1994, Radigan filed a motion with the
court to withdraw as Steadman’s attorney, and the court granted the
motion.
Steadman did not appear for trial on May 26, 1994.
2
In 1996, the Hardin County Grand Jury indicted Steadman
for first-degree bail jumping, a violation of Ky. Rev. Stat. (KRS)
520.070.
In January 1997, Steadman pleaded not guilty to the
charge. Trial on the bail jumping charge was delayed several times
by the Commonwealth, but was finally set for August 25, 1997.
On
July 3, 1997, the Commonwealth moved to have Steadman examined to
determine his competence to stand trial.
On August 12, 1997,
during the competency hearing, Steadman informed the court that he
was competent at that time and saw no reason to delay the trial.
The court determined that Steadman was indeed competent and denied
the Commonwealth’s motion for evaluation.2
The case proceeded to
trial.
Steadman was represented by a court-appointed attorney,
R. Craig Maffet.
This was Maffet’s first felony trial.
After the
jury was impanelled, Steadman was granted permission by the court
to serve as his own co-counsel.
After a one-day trial, the jury
found Steadman guilty of first-degree bail jumping.
In September
1994, the trial court sentenced Steadman in accord with the jury’s
recommendation to two years’ imprisonment.
Steadman appealed the conviction to this Court, and while
his appeal was pending, filed in the circuit court a RCr 11.42
motion collaterally attacking the judgment of conviction.
The
motion to vacate raised an issue of ineffective assistance of trial
counsel. The motion was denied without an evidentiary hearing, and
2
Although there was a more pressing need to do so, no one
requested a competency hearing for Steadman prior to his trial date
of May 26, 1994.
3
this, too, was appealed to this Court.
The two appeals were
consolidated.
On direct appeal,
Steadman argues that the trial court
erred in denying his request, pursuant to KRS 520.070(2), to
instruct the jury that it should find him not guilty if it believed
that his failure to appear at trial was unavoidable.3
See 1
Cooper, Kentucky Instructions to Juries (Criminal) § 7.34 (4th ed.
1993). The trial court, in denying Steadman’s request, agreed with
the Commonwealth that Steadman had not presented at trial evidence
to justify giving such an instruction.
At trial, three witnesses were called for the defense.
Each, testifying as to Steadman’s physical condition for the eight
month period after his stroke, described his infirmities.
The
witnesses testified that Steadman was not working, needed assistance in climbing stairs and getting in and out of a car, and
walked with a cane.
One witness, Rodney Powell, stated that
Steadman’s physical condition during that time, “wasn’t good.
He
had a stroke and wasn’t getting around good.”
The testimony of these three witnesses taken as a whole
was sufficient to raise a factual question as to whether Steadman’s
failure to appear at trial was unavoidable.
to that effect should have been given.
Ky. App., 618 S.W.2d 179, 181 (1981).
3
Thus, an instruction
Beasley v. Commonwealth,
“Instructions must be based
Ky. Rev. Stat. (KRS) 520.070(2) provides that: “In any
prosecution for bail jumping, the defendant may prove in
exculpation that his failure to appear was unavoidable and due to
circumstances beyond his control.”
4
upon the evidence and they must properly and intelligently state
the law.”
Howard v. Commonwealth, Ky., 618 S.W.2d 177, 178 (1981)
(citations omitted).
“Where the accused relies upon facts and
circumstances amounting to an avoidance of the crime, or having the
effect of exonerating him of criminal intent, he is entitled to a
concrete instruction on his excuse or theory of the case.”
v. Commonwealth, Ky., 294 S.W.2d 78, 81 (1956).
Monson
We conclude that
the failure to instruct on the only defense available to Steadman
denied him a fair trial.
Because we reverse the conviction for the aforementioned
reason, we need not address Steadman’s other allegations of error.
The judgment is reversed and this case is remanded to
Hardin Circuit Court for further proceedings.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
James W. Steadman, Sr., pro se
Lexington, Kentucky
Albert B. Chandler III
Attorney General
Joseph R. Johnson
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
