The “Carson Waiver” Clarified:
When a Clear “No-Objection” Extinguishes Appellate Review in Kentucky

Introduction

In Cassandra Carson v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Sup. Ct. No. 2023-SC-0320-MR, 20 June 2025), the Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed Cassandra Carson’s convictions for murder and violation of a protective order, together with a 50-year sentence. Although issued as an unpublished opinion, the Court’s detailed treatment of preservation, waiver, and the admissibility of prior-bad-acts evidence provides a useful roadmap for trial and appellate practitioners.

The core dispute turned on (1) whether the jury should have heard graphic evidentiary material, relationship evidence, and prior assault footage; and (2) whether counsel’s in-court statements of “no objection” prevented appellate review. Carson argued that cumulative evidentiary errors deprived her of a fair trial; the Commonwealth responded that most issues were either properly decided or waived. The Supreme Court agreed with the Commonwealth, anchoring its analysis in Howard v. Commonwealth and extending the notion of waiver to new factual contexts.

Summary of the Judgment

• Convictions for murder (50 years) and violation of a protective order (1 year, concurrent) are affirmed.
• Ten autopsy and crime-scene photographs, the 2018 “Dearborn video,” and related medical records were properly admitted; their probative value outweighed any prejudice under KRE 403.
• Evidence of Carson’s sexual relationships with neighbours (the Gilliams) and with Robert Grahl was admissible for motive, credibility, and state-of-mind—not merely as character evidence.
• Defence counsel’s express statements of “no objection” regarding (a) two recorded phone calls and (b) Matt Turner’s medical records constituted waiver, foreclosing any appellate relief—even under palpable-error review (RCr 10.26).
• Testimony by officers interpreting video/audio was improper in part, yet non-prejudicial; no palpable error arose.
• Cumulative-error doctrine was rejected because individual errors were neither numerous nor substantial.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

1. Howard v. Commonwealth, 595 S.W.3d 462 (Ky. 2020) – establishes that an explicit acceptance of a procedure or evidence at trial waives and not merely forfeits appellate review.
2. Tackett v. Commonwealth, 445 S.W.3d 20 (Ky. 2014) – same waiver principle for evidentiary admissions.
3. Springer v. Commonwealth, 998 S.W.2d 439 (Ky. 1999) – sexuality/infidelity evidence judged under general relevance, not KRE 404(b).
4. Chumbler v. Commonwealth, 905 S.W.2d 488 (Ky. 1995) – limiting excessive sexual-character evidence.
5. Dant v. Commonwealth, 258 S.W.3d 12 (Ky. 2008) – prior acts of violence against same victim presumptively admissible under KRE 404(b) for intent/plan.
6. Boyd, Wright, Morgan line – prohibits witness interpretation of video beyond personal knowledge.

Legal Reasoning

The Court organised its analysis around discrete evidentiary challenges, applying a two-step inquiry:

1. Was the evidence preserved? If defence counsel said “no objection,” the issue was deemed waived (not merely unpreserved). Under Howard, waiver eliminates even palpable-error review.
2. If preserved, did the trial court abuse discretion under KRE 401-403 or KRE 404(b)? The Court upheld the rulings, stressing:
   • Autopsy photos: limited to 10, directly illustrated the single fatal neck wound, and jury access was controlled (no photos left in binders).
   • Dearborn video (prior assault): same victim, similar conduct, only 13 months apart, highly probative to rebut Extreme Emotional Disturbance (EED) defence.
   • Infidelity evidence: necessary to show Carson’s motive to flee and witness bias; probative value outweighed prejudice; any stipulation could not fully capture relationship dynamics (Chumbler).

Impact

Although unpublished, Carson fortifies two practical doctrines that will guide Kentucky trial practice:

1. The Carson Waiver Rule. When counsel affirmatively states “No objection,” appellate courts will treat the issue as waived. Distinctions between forfeiture and waiver remain critical; the latter forecloses even palpable-error review. Expect prosecutors to press for explicit acknowledgements; defence counsel must preserve by objecting or requesting continuing objections.
2. Scope of Prior-Acts Evidence. The Court re-endorsed admitting video-documented prior violence against the same victim and broadened sexual-relationship evidence when it speaks to motive and witness credibility. Trial courts retain discretion to police excess (Chumbler), but the door is decidedly open.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Waiver vs. Forfeiture
  Forfeiture: counsel is silent—issue may still receive limited appellate review (palpable error).
  Waiver: counsel expressly relinquishes the right—issue is dead on arrival at appeal.
• KRE 403 Balancing – court weighs probative value against unfair prejudice; evidence crosses the line only if prejudice substantially outweighs relevance.
• KRE 404(b) – bars bad-acts evidence to prove character but allows it for specific listed purposes (motive, intent, plan). Prior violence against same victim typically passes this test.
• Extreme Emotional Disturbance (EED) – a partial defence reducing murder to manslaughter if defendant acted under a reasonable loss of self-control. “Reasonable” is judged objectively; here the Court found no evidence that knife-throwing over property constituted reasonable EED.

Conclusion

Carson v. Commonwealth reiterates that trials are won or lost in the moment when counsel decides whether to object. The Supreme Court’s unwavering application of the waiver doctrine underscores the necessity for real-time vigilance: saying “no objection” is tantamount to erecting an iron curtain against appellate relief.

On the evidentiary front, the Court reaffirmed Kentucky’s permissive stance toward prior-abuse videos and relationship/motive evidence, provided the KRE 403 balance is respected. Although the opinion cannot be cited as binding precedent, its methodical reasoning offers a blueprint for navigating similar disputes. Practitioners should expect “Carson waiver” arguments to arise whenever a trial record contains an explicit concession and should calibrate trial strategy accordingly.