JAMES F. ROBINSON V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED : NOVEMBER 18, 2010
ED
uyrrmr (~vurf of ~irn
2008-SC-000556-MR
JAMES F. ROBINSON
V
APPELLANT
ON APPEAL FROM PIKE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE EDDY COLEMAN, JUDGE
NO. 05-CR-00359-001
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE CUNNINGHAM
AFFIRMING
On November 2, 2005, Deputy Coroner Michael Hall received a call to
come to the home of Appellant's father, Frank Robinson . When Hall arrived, he
found Appellant's 23-month-old stepdaughter, H .L., lying face-up on the living
room floor. Hall checked her body and found no signs of life . H.L. was
pronounced dead at six o'clock that evening by Chief Coroner Russell Roberts.
The autopsy of H .L. revealed approximately twenty-six bruises of differing
ages to her face and head. In addition, H .L. had friable hair that could be
pulled out by hand and two fractures at the base of her skull . The skull
fractures caused hypoxic encephalopathy, a lack of oxygen to the brain as a
result of swelling. The autopsy also revealed that H.L.'s left arm was wounded,
with hemorrhages, contusions, bruises, a fractured humerus bone, and a torn
rotator cuff. H.L.'s left radius bone was also broken and had been for several
days. All other injuries were anywhere from a few days to a few weeks old . The
toxicology report further showed the presence of two drugs at toxic levels in
H.L .'s blood-promethazine, which goes by the brand name Phenergan, and
alprazolam, which goes by the brand name Xanax . There was also cough
syrup and Benadryl found in a urine sample .
Dr. Cristina Rolf, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy,
testified that she believed the fatal injury was the subdural and subarachnoid
hematomas caused by the dual fractures to H .L.'s skull. These injuries were
consistent with what Dr. Rolf believed was a severe blow to the head .
Additional testimony was given that the levels of drugs in H.L.'s body were in
such a high concentration that they would be toxic to an adult and could cause
respiratory depression and death .
Appellant and H .L.'s biological mother, Amber Robinson, were to be tried
jointly for the murder . Prior to trial, Amber entered an open guilty plea on the
advice of her attorney. No plea bargain was offered by the Commonwealth and
Amber received a sentence of life imprisonment. Appellant was ultimately
convicted of murder and the jury recommended a sentence of life
imprisonment . He now appeals the final judgment entered as a matter of right .
Ky. Const. ยง 110(2)(b) .
Appellant's only claim of error is that there was insufficient evidence to
support instructing the jury that he killed H .L. by either "overmedicating" or
"beating" her. As such, Appellant contends that the trial court violated his
constitutional right to a unanimous verdict.
The instruction at issue is the following:
INSTRUCTION NO. 5
MURDER
You will find the Defendant guilty of Murder
under this Instruction if, and only if, you believe from
the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt all of the
following:
A . That in this county on or about November 2,
2005, and before the finding of the Indictment herein,
the Defendant killed [H .L.] by beating her,
overmedicating her, and/or failing to provide proper
medical care to her;
AND
B . That in so doing, the Defendant was
wantonly engaging in conduct which created a grave
risk of death to [H .L.] and thereby caused the death of
[H .L.] under circumstances manifesting an extreme
indifference to human life .
It has long been clear that in this state a defendant cannot be convicted
of a criminal offense except by a unanimous verdict. Cannon v.
Commonwealth, 291 Ky. 50, 163 S.W.2d 15 (1942) ; RCr 9 .82(1) . In the past,
this Court has stated that a "combination" instruction permitting a conviction
of the same offense under either of multiple alternative theories does not
deprive a defendant of his right to a unanimous verdict, so .long as there is
evidence to support a conviction under either theory. Johnson v.
Commonwealth, 12 S.W.3d 258, 265-66 (Ky. 1999); Miller v. Commonwealth, 77
S .W.3d 566, 574 (Ky. 2002) . As this Court stated in Wells v . Commonwealth,
561 S .W.2d 85 (Ky. 1978) :
"It is not necessary that a jury, in order to find a
verdict, should concur in a single view of the
transaction disclosed by the evidence . If the
conclusion may be justified upon either of two
interpretations of the evidence, the verdict can not be
impeached by showing that a part of the jury
proceeded upon one interpretation and part upon the
other. . . ."
Id. at 88 (quoting People v. Sullivan, 173 N .Y. 122, 65 N.E . 989, 990 (1903)) .
There was sufficient evidence to support the theory that Appellant killed
H.L. by "beating" her.
According to medical testimony from the doctor who performed the
autopsy, H.L. sustained multiple skull fractures that ultimately led to her
death . Appellant contends that the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Appellant killed H.L. by beating her. Appellant points to
remarks made by the prosecutor during closing arguments stating: "I don't
.
know who laid the licks to [H .L.] ." This issue was not preserved at trial .
Nevertheless, Appellant requests palpable error review under RCr 10.26.
After a review of the evidence presented, we find no palpable error.
Appellant was the sole caretaker of H.L. for nearly the entire day on November
2, 2005, the day she was murdered . Testimony was given indicating that
Appellant had previously threatened to kill H.L. and her mother . In addition,
after her plea, Amber told the Commonwealth during an interview that she pled
guilty to something she did not do. (She later recanted this statement, saying
she was merely "playing dumb" to get information from the Commonwealth .) .
Testimony was also given by Berta Thacker, a corrections officer from the Pike
County Jail who was responsible for guarding Amber. Officer Thacker testified
that Amber stated she planned to take the blame for the murder because she
did not want Appellant to get more jail time. Appellant testified in his own
defense, but the jury apparently did not believe his version of events, instead
believing the witnesses for the Commonwealth . Deciding whose version to
believe and weighing witness credibility is entirely within the jury's discretion .
See Ratliff v. Commonwealth, 194 S .W .3d 258, 269 (Ky. 2006) . See also Webb
v. Commonwealth, 904 S .W .2d 226, 229 (Ky . 1995) ("The decision as to whose
story to believe is, of course, an issue for the jury to decide.") .
In his brief to this Court, Appellant admits the Commonwealth
established that either he or Amber was responsible for H .L.'s murder .' Faced
with this, the jury ultimately believed the Commonwealth presented sufficient
circumstantial evidence to prove that Appellant was responsible for the
murder . This task of fact finding was solely within the jury's province and it is
not for this Court to disturb that determination . As such, we find no error,
palpable or otherwise .
There was sufficient evidence to support the theory that Appellant killed
H.L. by "overmedicating" her.
Appellant states in his brief. "As the foregoing illustrates, when-or who, defendant
or Amber [Robinson)-=hit [H.L.] is anyone's guess. Defendant does not quibble with
a complicity theory of criminal liability ; the Commonwealth's evidence, viewed in its
most favorable light, establishes that much ."
Appellant next argues the Commonwealth failed to produce evidence that
he killed H .L. by "overmedicating" her. Appellant concedes that the evidence,
viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, establishes that
Appellant overmedicated H .L. However, Appellant claims that this did not
cause her death. In support, Appellant points to the testimony of Dr. Rolf, who
stated that the fatal injury was a blow to H .L.'s head .
It is true that, in order to find Appellant guilty of murder by
overmedication, it was necessary for the jurors to disbelieve part of the
testimony of Dr. Rolf, whose opinion was unequivocal that death was caused
by the subdural and subarachnoid hematomas resulting from the dual
fractures to H .L.'s skull . However, this is entirely permissible as we have long
stated that the jury may believe all of a witness's testimony, part of a witness's
testimony, or none of it. Gillispie v. Commonwealth, 212 Ky. 472, 279 S .W.
671, 672 (1926) . Testimony concerning the amount of promethazine and
alprazolam in H .L.'s body at the time of her death was offered by both Dr. Rolf
and Mike Ward, a toxicologist from the medical examiner's toxicology lab.
According to Dr. Rolf, both drugs were in "very high concentrations" in H .L.'s
blood. The toxicologist testified that, from the sample of blood taken from
H.L.'s heart, there was approximately 1 .2 mg/L of promethazine found, as well
as 0 .04 mg/ L of alprazolam. Additionally, both Dr. Rolf and Ward testified that
the drugs were at "toxic levels ." Ward indicated that toxic levels arise when the
effects of the drugs cause more harm than benefit. The amount of
promethazine in H.L.'s system could lead to fluctuations in heart rate and
blood pressure, profound sedation, a coma, and ultimately death. In addition,
the amount of alprazolam could cause respiratory depression, a decrease in
blood pressure, and profound sedation. While the presence of each drug alone
may not necessarily cause death, according to Ward, the two acting in concert
would "work strongly against [H .L.'s] chances of breathing" and would likely
lead to respiratory depression . On top of this, Appellant admitted that he
administered the medications to H.L.
On the basis of the evidence presented, we do not believe that it was
clearly unreasonable for the jury to find that Appellant killed H.L. by
overmedicating her. Commonwealth v. Benham, 816 S.W.2d 186, 187 (Ky.
1991) . Accordingly, we find that there was no unanimity violation, as the jury
could have reasonably found Appellant guilty under either or both theories of
cause of death .
In summary, we find there was evidence to support a conviction under
either challenged theory proposed in the instruction. For the reasons set forth
herein, the judgment of the Pike Circuit Court is hereby affirmed.
Minton, C .J . ; Abramson, Cunningham, Noble, Schroder and Scott, JJ .,
concur . Venters, J ., concurs in result only.
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT :
Jamesa J . Drake
Assistant Public Advocate
Department of Public Advocacy
100 Fair Oaks Lane, Suite 302
Frankfort, KY 40601
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE :
Jack Conway
Attorney General
Christian Kenneth Ray Miller
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Attorney General
Office of Criminal Appeals
1024 Capital Center Drive, Suite 200
Frankfort, KY 40601
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.