The Kentucky Supreme Court issued a ruling earlier this month affirming the judgment and sentence of Chase Simmons, the Owensboro man found guilty of murdering two teens and wounding one during a 2019 shooting in Whitesville.
The incident took place at a party that was held on Crisp Road in Whitesville starting the evening of May 31, 2019. The shooting occurred at around 12:30 a.m. on June 1. Simmons, 17 at the time, was arrested on June 6 and was charged.
In June 2022, a jury found Simmons, now 22, guilty of murder for the shooting deaths of 19-year-old Jasper Brown III and 16-year-old Amarius Winstead. He was also found guilty of second-degree assault for the non-fatal shooting of Tyler Glover, who was 19 at the time.
Read our in-depth coverage of the trial here.
The jury recommended a total prison sentence of 60 years — 2 consecutive 30-year sentences for the murder convictions along with a 5-year concurrent sentence for the assault conviction. The trial court sentenced Simmons in accordance with that recommendation.
According to the 18-page unanimous opinion issued earlier this month, Simmons raised 3 issues in his appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court: whether the cellphone photographs of him with firearms were properly authenticated; whether those photos were admissible under KRE2 404(b); and whether the trial court erred in denying his request for a voluntary intoxication instruction.
A voluntary intoxication instruction is warranted only if the proof is sufficient to support a reasonable finding that the voluntary intoxication completely prevented the defendant from forming the requisite intent to commit the crimes, according to the justices.
Simmons claimed the instruction was warranted because:
- A witness testified Simmons smoked marijuana before the shootings
- 2 witnesses testified Simmons was “tripping on acid” that evening
- A witness described Simmons as “energetic, intense, and ‘bouncing off the walls’”
- A witness stated Simmons sounded “‘messed up’” during his FaceTime call with the witness after the shootings
The justices wrote: “This proof could certainly support a reasonable conclusion that Simmons was under the influence of multiple drugs at the time of the shootings, but it falls short of the necessary showing that he was so intoxicated he did not know what he was doing.”
The continued later: “Moreover, other proof at trial flatly contradicts any suggestion Simmons was so intoxicated as to be unable to form an intent to kill or injure.
They cited the specific example of Simmons, immediately after the shootings, having the mental capacity to decide not to go home, to decide upon another residence in Owensboro as an
alternative destination, and to give the driver of the vehicle physical directions to the alternative destination.
Additional proof further demonstrating that Simmons had mental control and was aware of his actions, the justices wrote, included his direction to the driver to stay in the car when they arrived at the party, his quick return to the car after the shootings, his order to the driver to “go” when he jumped back in the car, and his confession to a witness shortly after the shootings that he had killed Brown.
The rest of the appeal dealt with the photos used during the trial.
“Simmons first argues that the trial court erred in admitting the firearms photos retrieved from his cellphone because those photos were not properly authenticated. More particularly, Simmons contends the photos were not authenticated because the Commonwealth could not say when the photos were taken, whether they were taken with the phone or downloaded from another source, or if they contained metadata,” the opinion reads.
The justices said the proof at trial was sufficient to authenticate that the photographs were images of Simmons with the gun used in the shootings.
The opinion reads: “First, Simmons’s mother was a person with knowledge who testified that he was in the photos. This was sufficient to support a finding that the person in the photos was Simmons. KRE 901(b)(1). Second, the jury was shown photographs of the Glock with a clear clip found beneath the shed and confirmed by ballistics analysis to be the murder weapon. As finder of fact, the jury could compare that weapon with the gun in the cellphone photographs to determine whether they were the same firearm. KRE 901(b)(3). In addition, the clear clip shared by both the murder weapon and the gun in the cellphone photographs was sufficiently distinctive to support a finding that the gun in the photograph was the murder weapon.”
Simmons also argued admission of the cellphone photographs violated KRE 404(b). According to the justices, Simmons’s particular arguments are that the photos were not relevant because it could not be determined when they were taken, whether they were taken by him, or if they included the actual weapon used in the crimes.
However, the justices wrote that the photographs were relevant to establishing Simmons’s identity as the shooter and his opportunity to commit the crimes.
They said the relevance of the photographs “was not undermined by the absence of proof of when they were taken, particularly given that the cellphone was seized near the time of the murders.” The added that the relevance of the evidence was not dependent on how the photographs came to be on Simmons’s phone or where related metadata was.
The justices also agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the prejudicial effect of the photographs did not substantially outweigh their probative value.
The opinion reads: “The cellphone photographs were highly probative of Simmons’s identity as the shooter and his opportunity to commit the crimes, given that they showed him with a firearm with a distinctive clear clip similar to the murder weapon. Admittedly, the photographs were also prejudicial, not only because they showed Simmons with a firearm similar to the murder weapon but also with a variety of other firearms as well. Nonetheless, there was nothing particularly shocking about the photographs, which ultimately were little more than mundane photographs of the defendant showing his guns.”
Find the full opinion below or at this link.
