## Facts

- Robert Williams was tried in Fayette Circuit Court for shooting and killing Albert Combs with a shotgun on March 30, 1990.
- The killing was witnessed by several people, and Williams claimed he acted in self-defense.
- The court noted Combs was known as a bully with a violent temper and was also known to have mental problems; he periodically received counseling and treatment at Comprehensive Care in Lexington.
- A jury convicted Williams of second-degree manslaughter, and the trial court sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.
- During voir dire, a prospective juror initially suggested that a person who shoots and kills someone is automatically guilty of murder; after further questioning (including about self-defense and following the court’s instructions), the trial court denied a for-cause strike, and Williams removed the juror with a peremptory challenge.
- Before trial, Williams sought to introduce Combs’s mental-health treatment records; the trial court excluded the records.
- At sentencing, the trial judge did not consider probation, conditional discharge, or community service as alternatives to incarceration, relying on a 1976 Kentucky statute that made a defendant convicted of a felony “involving the use of a gun” ineligible for probation or conditional discharge.
- On appeal, Williams argued that 1990 sentencing enactments—including KRS 500.095 (requiring the judge to consider community service as an alternative in cases punishable by imprisonment) and a provision making conditional discharge available where imprisonment is not required by statute—required the trial court to consider alternatives despite the firearm-related bar.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court commit reversible error by denying Williams’s for-cause challenge to a prospective juror where Williams removed the juror with a peremptory challenge and the juror did not sit on the final panel?
2. Did the trial court commit reversible error by excluding the victim’s mental-health treatment records offered to support Williams’s self-defense theory?
3. Did the trial court err by refusing to consider alternative sentencing under 1990 statutes (including community service and conditional discharge) in a felony involving use of a firearm?

## Decision

- The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and five-year sentence.
- The court found no reversible error in the denial of the for-cause challenge because the juror was questioned further, did not serve on the final jury, and Williams did not show that an incompetent juror actually sat on the panel.
- The court upheld exclusion of the victim’s mental-health records as a discretionary evidentiary ruling and found no basis for reversal on this record.
- The court rejected Williams’s statutory sentencing argument and held the trial court did not commit reversible error by declining to consider nonincarcerative alternatives in light of the firearm-related statutory disqualification from probation and conditional discharge; the 1990 “consider community service” language did not create an entitlement to an alternative sentence.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is not entitled to reversal based solely on being required to use a peremptory strike after an unsuccessful for-cause challenge; to obtain relief, the defendant must show that, after exhausting peremptory challenges, an incompetent juror was seated (consistent with Ross v. Oklahoma and Kentucky precedent such as Turpin v. Commonwealth).
- Trial courts have broad control over admitting or excluding evidence; an appellate court reviews such rulings for abuse of discretion and will not reverse absent a showing of prejudice.
- A trial court may exclude specific mental-health treatment records of the victim where the defense can present other admissible proof of the victim’s reputation or conduct and where the defendant does not show the excluded records were necessary to a fair determination of the self-defense claim.
- Sentencing statutes are construed together where possible; “shall consider” language requiring consideration of community service does not guarantee a community-service sentence.
- A specific statutory bar on probation or conditional discharge for felonies involving a firearm is not displaced by later, more general sentencing provisions absent clear legislative intent to repeal or override the earlier disqualification.

## Conclusion

Williams v. Kentucky affirmed Robert Williams’s second-degree manslaughter conviction and five-year sentence, holding that no reversible error occurred from the denied for-cause strike where the juror did not sit, that exclusion of the victim’s mental-health records was within the trial court’s evidentiary discretion on the record presented, and that the trial court was not required to consider community service, probation, or conditional discharge as sentencing alternatives in a firearm-involved felony under the applicable Kentucky statutes.


Williams v. Kentucky, 829 S.W.2d 942 (1992)