STEVEN DARNELL CHENAULT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED SEPTEMBER 13, 2002; 10:00 a.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
2001-CA-002438-MR
STEVEN DARNELL CHENAULT
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE REBECCA M. OVERSTREET, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 2001-CR-00597
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
COMBS, GUIDUGLI, AND SCHRODER, JUDGES.
SCHRODER, JUDGE:
Appellant, Steven Darnell Chenault (Chenault),
was convicted of manslaughter in the second degree and sentenced
to ten years’ imprisonment.
Chenault raises one issue on appeal,
whether the trial court should have granted his motion for a
directed verdict.
After reviewing the record, we affirm.
On April 14-15, 2001, Chenault, Timothy Owsley
(Owsley), Ronald Barber (Barber), Leonard Alexander Woods
(Woods), Anwar Jenkins (Jenkins), and Lamar Boyd (Boyd) were
drinking at Chenault's house.
There was conflicting testimony as
to whether they were also smoking marijuana.
Nevertheless,
sometime in the early morning hours of April 15, 2001, they
decided to leave the Chenault residence and ride their bikes to
another residential area.
Before leaving the residence, Chenault
got a gun from Boyd who stayed behind.
behind the rest of the group.
On the trip Owsley fell
Chenault went back to where Owsley
was and words were exchanged between the two.
The stories of the
witnesses were conflicting as to the exact words exchanged.
Chenault either told Owsley to hurry up or he would have to shoot
him or that Chenault told Owsley to shut up or he would have to
shoot him.
Owsley said, "Just shoot me."
None of the witnesses
saw the actual shooting, but after the exchange of words they
heard the gun go off and turned to see Owsley fall to the ground.
Chenault immediately stated that he had accidentally shot Owsley
and that the gun "just went off."
The bikers then moved Owsley's body and his bike off
the path into some bushes and returned to Chenault's home.
Chenault returned the gun to Boyd and told him that he "might
want to get rid of it."
He told the others not to tell anyone.
After Owsley's body was discovered, the police investigation led
to the witnesses.
At first they denied knowing anything about
it, but one of them later returned to the police and told what
had happened.
When questioned for the second time, Chenault
confessed to shooting Owsley but maintained that it was an
accident and the gun "just went off."
Chenault was indicted by a Fayette County Grand Jury on
the offenses of murder and tampering with physical evidence.
jury trial was held October 1-2, 2001.
At the end of the
prosecution's case, Chenault moved for a directed verdict.
motion was denied.
Instructions were given to the jury on
-2-
A
The
murder, second-degree manslaughter, reckless homicide, and
tampering with physical evidence.
The jury convicted Chenault of
manslaughter in the second degree and acquitted him of the
tampering charge.
The only issue on appeal is whether the
circuit court erred in denying the motion for directed verdict.
A directed verdict of acquittal should be granted when,
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, it would be unreasonable for a jury to find guilt.
If the evidence is sufficient to induce a reasonable juror to
believe beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty, a
directed verdict should not be given.
Commonwealth v. Benham,
Ky., 816 S.W.2d 186 (1991).
The forensic pathologist testified that Owsley was shot
while the gun was in direct contact with his head.
The firearms
examiner testified that he tested the gun to ensure that it
functioned properly.
He testified that the gun could be fired
two ways; one requiring 3-½ pounds of pressure and the other
requiring 11-to-12 pounds of pressure on the trigger, that the
gun had safety features to avoid inadvertent firing, and that in
order to fire the weapon one would have to apply constant
pressure.
While there was some inconsistency in the testimony as
to the words exchanged between the two and the witnesses, all
testified that they thought the two were engaging in a "play
argument".
Woods said that when they returned to Chenault's, he
was thinking about it because he "didn't know if they were
playing or not."
When this evidence is viewed in a light most favorable
to the Commonwealth, we must conclude that the trial judge
-3-
properly denied the motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.
Nichols v. Commonwealth, Ky., 657 S.W.2d 932 (1983).
This
evidence was more than a mere scintilla and the case was properly
presented to the jury for determination.
Benham, 816 S.W.2d at
188.
While Chenault is correct that the evidence does not
show that he intended to kill Owsley, it nevertheless was not
unreasonable for a jury to find that his conduct and/or state of
mind met the statutory definition for murder, second-degree
manslaughter or reckless homicide.
Even though Chenault may not
have intended to kill, if the jury found that his conduct was
such that it created a grave risk of death to Owsley and thereby
caused his death under circumstances manifesting extreme
indifference to human life, they could find him guilty of murder.
KRS 507.020(1)(b).
If the jury found that Chenault was aware of
and consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk
that his conduct would result in the death of Owsley, they could
find him guilty of second-degree manslaughter.
KRS 507.040.
If
the jury found that Chenault failed to perceive a substantial and
unjustifiable risk that his conduct would result in the death of
Owsley, they could find him guilty of reckless homicide.
507.050 and 501.020.
KRS
Of course, if the jury determined that
Chenault did not intend to kill, and if his mental state with
respect to the Owsley's death was neither wanton nor reckless,
the jury could have found that the death was accidental and that
Chenault was not guilty of any degree of homicide.
Commonwealth, Ky., 976 S.W.2d 416 (1998).
-4-
Elliot v.
Although the prosecution in a criminal case has the
burden of proving every element of the defendant's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt, KRS 500.070(1), In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90
S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970), Commonwealth v. Collins,
Ky., 821 S.W.2d 488, 490 (1991), mens rea, specifically intent,
can be inferred from circumstances.
McClellan v. Commonwealth,
Ky., 715 S.W.2d 464, 466 (1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1057, 107
S. Ct. 935, 93 L. Ed. 2d 986 (1987); Commonwealth v. Phillips,
Ky., 655 S.W.2d 6 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1072, 104 S. Ct.
1427, 79 L. Ed. 2d 751 (1984); Wilson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 601
S.W.2d 280 (1980).
When the evidence is circumstantial and does not
conclusively establish a defendant's state of mind at the time of
the killing, it is appropriate to instruct on all degrees of
homicide and leave it to the jury to sort out the facts and
determine what inferences and conclusions to draw from the
evidence.
Commonwealth v. Wolford, Ky., 4 S.W.3d 534 (1999).
The evidence showed that Chenault threatened to shoot Owsley.
The question as to whether this was said in jest was properly a
question for the jury.
Commonwealth v. Smith, Ky., 5 S.W.3d 126,
129 (1999); Estep v. Commonwealth, Ky., 957 S.W.2d 191, 193
(1997).
The evidence showed that Chenault held a loaded gun to
the head of Owsley.
From the testimony of the firearms examiner,
it was reasonable for the jury to infer that the gun did not go
off accidently as Chenault contended, but rather that he pulled
the trigger.
This evidence as a whole was sufficient to create a
-5-
jury issue and therefore, the Court properly denied the motion
for directed verdict.
For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of
conviction imposed by the Fayette Circuit Court.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
John Kevin West
Lexington, Kentucky
Albert B. Chandler, III
Attorney General
Brian T. Judy
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
-6-
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.
