The Kentucky Court of Appeals has affirmed an opinion issued by the Monroe Circuit Court in a case involving the 2006 death of a Glasgow Daily Times newspaper carrier.

David Huff, 39, of Tompkinsville, an independent contractor who delivered the Glasgow Daily Times for eight years, was killed when his vehicle was struck head-on by a vehicle driven by David Mills, 40, of Indiana, on Sept. 3, 2006, on Mill Creek Road in Tompkinsville around 2:30 a.m.

Mills was apprehended two days after the wreck on Sept. 5, 2006, when an anonymous tip led police to his location in an abandoned trailer. Mills was later found guilty of second-degree manslaughter, fourth-degree assault, theft by unlawful taking (motor vehicle), leaving the scene of an accident and operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or another substance. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

Mills appealed the court’s decision and argued that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence photographs of the wreck scene that showed the body of the victim, refusing to allow his expert witness to introduce a photograph of a vehicle of the same year and model as the one Mills was driving and for refusing to grant his motion for a directed verdict.

Mills argued the introduction of the crime scene photographs were irrelevant, repetitive and inherently inflammatory. He made a motion during the trial to exclude several of the photographs pursuant to KRS 403, which states evidence may be excluded if its “probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of the undue prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” He also argued that the photographs, which he said were gruesome and inflammatory with very slight probative value, were unnecessary because there were other photos, as well as testimony, that demonstrated the severity of the wreck and the damage to Huff’s vehicle. He also said the photographs did not accurately show the damage to Huff’s vehicle because they were taken after the roof of the car had been removed by emergency personnel. He further argued that the photographs were “objectionable and overwhelmed the jury.”

The Court of Appeals opinion stated that the photos had “considerable probative value in casting doubt on Mill’s claim that Huff had backed into his path.”

“In making a KRE 403 ruling, a trial court must consider three factors: the probative worth of the evidence, the probability that the evidence will cause undue prejudice, and whether the harmful effects substantially outweigh the probative worth.”

The opinion also stated, “we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs into evidence.”

As for Mills’ argument that the trial court erred in not allowing his expert witness to introduce a photograph depicting a car of the same year and model as the stolen Ford Taurus driven by Mills and that the exclusion of the photograph violated his right under the Sixth and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution to present a defense, the opinion states “we conclude that the trial court’s exclusion of the photograph did not, therefore, undermine a fundamental element of Mill’s defense.”

He next argued that he was denied due process of the law when the trial court denied his motion for a directed verdict, and contends there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction for the offenses of second-degree manslaughter, fourth-degree assault and driving under the influence. He said there was no evidence to show that he was intoxicated at the time of the wreck, even though his girlfriend testified that he was intoxicated hen he came to her house that evening.

The opinion stated, “We cannot say, upon reviewing the evidence as a whole, that it was clearly unreasonable for the jury to find guilt.”

Mills also contents that Trooper Mike Dubree misstated facts to the grand jury when he testified that Mills told him he had drank six to seven beers on the night of the wreck. He also argued that the grand jury might have not found him guilty on the more serious charge of murder had it not been for Dubree’s statements.

“Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure 8.18 provides in part that defenses and objections based on defects in the institution of the prosecution or in the indictment or information other than that it fails to show jurisdiction in the court or to charge an offense may be raised only by motion before trial. Failure to present any such defense or objection as herein provided constitutes a waiver thereof, but the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver.

“In this case, no objection to the indictment was made prior to trial, nor has Mills shown why the requirement should be waived,” the opinion stated.