CHARLES SHOULDERS V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT ·To BE PUBLISHED OPINION . ( THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER, _ UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS, RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS TBE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION · BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE ACTION. ··. RENDERED: FEBRUARY 15, 2018 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED ~uprettte ~nurf nf !!tenfu:cku 20 l 6-SC-000629-MR CHARLES SHOULDERS v. APPELLANT ON APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE MARY M. SHAW, JUDGE NOS. 15-CR-001888 & 15-CR-003383 COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT .AFFIRMING On the evening of July 4, 2015, Appellant, Charles William Shoulders, made a 911 call and reported that he had shot his wife, Juandora, at their residence. Shoulders can be heard on a recording of the 911 call stating, "I just killed my wife," and "I shot her." The _couple had begun fighting when Shoulders confronted Juandora with accusations of infidelity. Shortly after Shoulders made the 911 call, police officers and firstresponders arrived at the Shoulders' residence. Upon arrival, a clearly intoxicated Shoulders confronted the first-responders and incoherently yelled profanities at them. Officers found Juandora's lifeless body in the couple's bedroom with a gunshot wound to the head. A firearm was also confiscated .from the Shoulders' residence. Shoulders was subsequently arreste.d and taken to Louisville Metro Police Department Headquarters. Shoulders was h.eld in the police station's interview room for approximately 110 minutes before he was booked into jail. About six or seven minutes into a recording of his interview room detention, Shoulders can be heard asking, among other things, to have ·a public defender appointed for him "now." Although he was not appointed counsel at that time, no officers initiated any questioning of Shoulders about his wife's shooting after his request for counsel. Sh.oulders requested several times to be taken to jail and complained that the interview room was cold. Officers told Shoulders that he was being kept in the interview room while his arrest paperwork was being processed so he could be transferred to jail, and that the process can take time. Shoulders continued to complain about the slow procedure. and alleged that the police were "working" on him by purposefully going slow. While detained in the interview room, Shoulders resumed his drunken tirade. Rather than remain silent, and without any prompting, he spoke aloud about his deadly fight with Juandora. Shoulders also destrqyed tables, chairs, and other police property _within the interview room; He even threatened to kill an officer. On July 15, 2015, a Jefferson County grand jury charged Shoulders with the murder of his wife, criminal mischief, and terroristic threatening. In a separate December 2015 indictment, Shoulders was charged with being a felon in possession of a handgun.· 2 At trial, the prosecution played portions of the interview· room recording for the jury. The portions viewed by the jury included, among other incriminating statements, Shoulders calling his wife many derogatory names and stating that the shooting was a fight in which "one died, one didn't." The jury ~as also shown vi~eo evidence that Shoulders urinated on the floor, destroyed police property in the interview room, and threatened to kill an officer therein. Shoulders sought to suppress the entire recording of his detention in the interview room, arguing that the police deliberately used isolation and cold temperature to coerce him into fovoluntarily speaking about the shooting. On June 23, 2016, the Jefferson Circuit Court denied the suppression motion, ruling in its order that the police did not question Shoulders or take any action likely to elicit an incriminating response from him. Shoulders did not seek modification or reconsideration of the trial court's.order. Shoulders was convicted of murder, criminal mischief, terroristic threatening, and being a felon in possession of a handgun. Following the jury's recommendation, the trial court sentenced Shoulders to a total of 27 years' impri~onment. Shoulders now appeals his conviction and sentence as a matter of right pursuant to Section 110(2)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution. Analysis Shoulders raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred when it denied Shoulders' suppression motion; and (2) whether the prosecutor improperly introduced KRE 404(a) character evidence, KRE 404(b) prior bad acts evidence, or improper "golden rule" argument during closing statements. Motion to Suppress Video Recording from Interview Room "Our review of a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress 'requires a two-step determination ... [t]he factual findings by the trial courf are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard, ~d the application of the law to those facts is conducted under de novo review.~' Brown v. Commonwealth, 416 S.W.3d 302, 307 (Ky. 2013) (internal citation o"mitted). Because the facts are not disputed, we review this issue de novo. We begin by noting that Shoulders admitted during his 911 call that he had shot his wife, and the defense conceded during its opening statements that · Shoulders drunkenly shot his wife. Thus, the primary.issue at trial was whether Shoulders had the mens rea for murder, or a lesser mental state of guilt regarding the deadly shooting. The video recording of Shoulders destroying the interview room, threatening police officers with violence, and speaking aloud about shooting his wife after accusing her of being unfaithful were all relevant evidence of the crimes charged. KRE 401. Any prejudicial effect was not substantially outweighed by the probative value of this evidence that Shoulders destroyed police property, made terroristic threats to officers, possessed a handgun; and intentionally killed his wife. KRE 403. If Shoulders was subjected to coercive interrogation in the interview room, then his statements will be suppressed .under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 4 U.S. 436 (1966), and its progeny. See id. at 478 ("The fundamental import of the privilege while an individual is in custody is not whether he is allowed to talk to the police without the benefit of warnings and counsel, but whether he can be interrogated .... ). "Interrogation" is an interaction between an accused and the police which .is likely to elicit an incriminating response. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300 (1980). Interrogation i~cludes express questioning and its functional equivalent. Id. at 300-01. Because it is undisputed that Shoulders was not subjected ·to "express questioning" after his request for counsel, Miranda safeguards only come into play if the police engaged in express questioning's "functional equivalent" Id. The "functional equivalent" of express questioning is defined as "any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect." Id. at 301. The Commonwealth claims that Shoulders was held in the interview room temporarily, until the lead deteetive returned to the department and completed the necessary arrest and domestic violence paperwork. We agree with the trial court that this temporary detainment in the interview room was not intended to be, and did not have the effect of being, coercive. However, whether an act is the "functional equivalent" of express questioning "focuses primarily upon the perceptions of the suspect, rather than the intent of the police ... [a] practice that the police should know is 5 reasonably likely to evoke· an incriminating response from a suspect thus amounts to interrogation.". Id. Here, Shoulders' argument that the police should have known that holding him in a cold interview room while intoxicated was reasonably likely to elicit incriminating statements from him is without merit. He was in no way physically, psychologically or otherwise coerced by the police. He was not subject to any express questioning. Nor was he subject to its functional equivalent. Holding Shoulders in the interview room temporarily was not "a practice that the police should [have] know[n] [was] reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response." Innis, 446U.S. at 301. Shoulders voluntarily confessed to shooting his wife during the 911 call and in the interview room. Video footage of Shoulders speaking about the shooting, defadng police property, and threatening an officer is relevant to the crime's charged. Therefore, we find that the trial court did not err in denying Shoulders' suppression motion. KRE 404(a) and KRE 404(b) Next, Shoulders argues that the prosecutor introduced evidence of Shoulders' character traits and prior bad acts that was inadmissible under KRE 404(a)-(b). "KRE 404(b) has always been interpreted as exclusionary in nature." Bell v. Commonwealth, 875 S.W.2d 476, 481 (Ky. 1992) (original emphasis). To. that end, Shoulders' character traits under KRE 404(a) and evidence of his prior bad acts under KRE 404(b) are admissible "only if probative of an issue independent of character or criminal disposition, and only 6 if its probative value on that issue outweighs the unfair prejudice with respect to character." Billings v. Commonwealth, 843 S,.W.2d 890, 892 (Ky. 1992); KRE 404(b)(l). Here, the prosecutor provided KRE 404(c) notice of intent to introduce testimonial evidence: (1) from Shoulders that he had pointed the gun at Juandora on another occasion, and (2) from Juandora's granddaughter and her sister Renee that Shoulders had previously threatened Juandora with violence. The trial court permitted that testimonial evidence, provided the prosecutor approach the bench before presenting further KRE 404(h) evidence. During closing argument, the prosecutor referred to Shoulders' treatment of the first-responders and officers at the police station, stating that Shoulders was demonstrably a "mean drunk" and a "nasty drunk." · Two minutes after referring to Shoulders' 911 call, his interaction with first-responders, and the interview room recording of him, the prosecutor then stated: You know what I can't help but think? What must that man be ·like behind closed doors? Can you imagine what it was like when it was just him and Juandora? I thought it was interesting that Juandora's sister Renee told you she didn't like to be around him when he was drinking. With good reason. · (emphasis added). · Defense counsel objected to the sfatement, claiming, among other things, that it implied "maybe this isn't the only time this has happened .... " The trial court instructed the prosecutor to refrain from such open-ended statements, whereby the prosecutor resumed her closing argument alternatively by stating 7. that "[o]n this night he was a mean, nasty drunk .... " Defense counsel made no further objections. The prosecutor's assertions that Shoulders is a "mean, nasty drunk" were made in reference to specific instances of drunken delinquency Shoulders committed the night of the charged crime, including his treatment of firstresponders and the interview room recording of his wild behavior. They were not generalized statements of his propensity for drunken violence. Further, in response to the objection, the prosecutor rephrased her closing to specify that Shoulders was a "mean, nasty drunk" ori the night in question. Likewise, the prosecutor's request that the jury imagine what Shoulders must "be like behind closed doors . . . when it was just him and Juandora" · does not fall within .the definition of evidence of prior bad acts excluded under · KRE 404(b). Rather, the prosecution properly introduced character evidence by calling character witnesses to testify about Shoulders' bad reputation and give their opinion about his character trait of drunken violence toward Juandora. Additionally, Shoulders' interview room admission that he had previously pointed a gun at Juandora also went towards queries about his intent to shoot Juandora. The prosecutor's subsequent challenged statement merely invited the jury to apply the admissible evidence of Shoulders' violent nature and did not introduce further KRE 404(b) evidence. Thus, Shoulders' KRE 404(b) argument is without merit. 8 "Golden Rule" Argument Lastly, Shoulders claims that the prosecutor's closing argument was an \ impermissible "golden rule" argument under Lycans v. Commontbealth, 562 I S.W.2d 303, 305 (Ky. 1978). Shoulders failed to preserve the "golden rule" issue(on appeal. Thus, we will revie;w for palpable error. RCr 10.26; McCleery v. Commonwealth, 410 S.W.3d 597, 606 (Ky. 2013). A "golden rule" argument in a_ criminai C§lse "urges the jurors collectively or singularly to place themselves or members of their families or friends in the - place of the person who has been offended and to render a verdict as if they or I either of them or a member of their families or friends was similarly situated." Lycans, 562 S.W.2d at 305. Notably, a "golden rule" argtiment that "cajole[s] or coerce[s] ajury to'reach a verdict" is erroneous .. Id. at 306. During closing argument, the prosecutor asked the jury to imagine what Juandora's life was like "behind closed doors" with an inebriated Shoulders. '1 Here, the prosecutor did not ask the jury to put themselves in the victim's place, but only to imagine her life with Shoulders. In contrast, the challenged statements in Lycans asked the jury to place themselves in the victim's shoes, after the prosecutor recounted the charged .crime in graphic detail. . The "golden rule" argument is confined to the Lycans definition. The prosecutor asking the jury to "imagine what the victim's personal life was like" was n·ot the same as asking the jurors to "imagine how you would feel or react if you were in the victim's place." Thus, Shoulders' "golden rule" argument is · 9 ; meritless. Thus, we find no error in the trial court's decision to overrule . Shoulders' meritless objection to the prosecutor's closing argument. Conclusion For the reasons stated herein, we hereby affirm the decisions of the Jefferson Circuit Court. All sitting. All concur. COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Julia Karol Pearson Assistant Public Advocate, Department of Public Advocacy COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Andy Beshear Attorney General of Kentucky Jeffrey Allan Cross Assistant Attorney General 10
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.
