COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY v. TIMOTHY WATROUS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: August 2, 1996; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
NO. 95-CA-0767-MR
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE JOHN W. POTTER, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 92-CR-2037 & 94-CR-2879
v.
TIMOTHY WATROUS
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING AND REMANDING
* * * * * * *
BEFORE:
DYCHE, JOHNSON and KNOPF, Judges.
KNOPF, JUDGE:
This is an interlocutory appeal from a ruling of
the Jefferson Circuit Court preventing the introduction of the
appellee's prior drunk driving convictions during the guilt phase
of his trial for driving under the influence.
Based on recent
decisions by the Supreme Court of Kentucky, we affirm the trial
court.
The appellee, Timothy Watrous was indicted on the
charges of driving under the influence (DUI), fourth offense,
criminal possession of a forged instrument, operating a motor
vehicle with license suspended or revoked for DUI, and possession
of a fictitious, cancelled, revoked or altered license.
Prior to
trial, the appellee moved to exclude any reference to his prior
DUI convictions during the Commonwealth's case-in-chief.
The
trial court granted the motion, finding that introduction of the
prior DUI convictions would be unduly prejudicial to the
appellee.
The action below was stayed pending this appeal by the
Commonwealth.
The Supreme Court of Kentucky recently addressed this
issue in three (3) cases: Commonwealth v. Ramsey, Ky., 920 S.W.2d
526 (1996); O'Bryan v. Commonwealth, Ky., 920 S.W.2d 529 (1996);
and Dedic v. Commonwealth, Ky., 920 S.W.2d 878 (1996).
The
Supreme Court noted that the elements for the offense of DUI are
wholly contained in KRS 189A.010(1).
On the other hand, the
penalties are delineated in subsection (4), with the severity of
punishment increasing with the number of prior violations of
subsection (1).
Ramsey, 920 S.W.2d at 528.
The Supreme Court
held that evidence of prior convictions is not essential to the
Commonwealth's case-in-chief in the prosecution of a DUI charge
and the introduction of the prior convictions is unduly
prejudicial to the defendant.
Consequently, prior DUI
convictions shall not be introduced during the guilt phase of a
DUI trial, but are only admissible during the penalty phase.
Id.
at 529.
As a result of these decisions, the trial court was
correct in excluding any mention of the appellee's prior
convictions during the guilt phase.
At the trial of this action,
if the jury reaches a guilty verdict, the circuit court has
authority to conduct a penalty phase pursuant to KRS 532.055, in
-2-
which the prior convictions may be introduced and the appropriate
sentence determined, following proper instructions to the jury.
Id. at 528.
Accordingly, the ruling of the Jefferson Circuit Court
is affirmed and this action is remanded for trial.
ALL CONCUR
-3-
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Chris Gorman
Attorney General
Bruce P. Hackett
Daniel T. Goyette
Jefferson District Public
Defender
Louisville, Ky.
Carol C. Ullerich
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Ky.
-4-
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.
