Anderson v. Commonwealth
2011 Ky. LEXIS 115
| Ky. | 2011Background
- Anderson was convicted by a Mason Circuit Court jury of assault in the first degree and found to be a persistent felony offender in the second degree, receiving twenty years' imprisonment.
- The alleged victim, Ormes, sustained a facial laceration from a straight razor during a July 26, 2009 barbecue dispute with Anderson and Andy Ormes; the injury was described as a deep jawline cut with no documented ongoing medical treatment.
- Ormes testified to the nature of the injury and recovery, while hospital records or additional treatment were not introduced at trial.
- Anderson was questioned at the police station; he spoke on his cell phone before Miranda warnings were given, then waived rights and provided an interview after warnings were administered.
- The trial court denied Anderson’s suppression motion, finding he was not intoxicated to the point of involuntariness, and the jury convicted him of first-degree assault and PFO; the court sentenced him to twenty years.
- This Court reversed the first-degree assault conviction for insufficiency of proof of serious physical injury, but otherwise affirmed the admissibility of volunteered statements and pre-interview cell-phone statements; the case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the Opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient proof of serious physical injury for first-degree assault. | Anderson | Commonwealth | Insufficient proof of serious physical injury; reverse first-degree assault conviction. |
| Whether the trial court properly denied suppression of statements given intoxication. | Anderson | Commonwealth | Trial court ruling sustained; statements voluntary and admissible. |
| Whether pre-interview cell-phone statements were admissible given Miranda requirements. | Anderson | Commonwealth | Cell-phone statements admissible; not subject to Miranda since no interrogation occurred. |
| Whether the requirement to determine PFO status before sentencing affected trial proceedings. | Anderson | Commonwealth | Remand for proper procedure; need to follow Reneer method. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (due process requires proof of elements beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Miller v. Commonwealth, 77 S.W.3d 566 (Ky. 2002) (due process and burden of proof in criminal cases)
- Brooks v. Commonwealth, 114 S.W.3d 818 (Ky. 2003) (serious physical injury requires substantial proof of injury severity)
- Commonwealth v. Hocker, 865 S.W.2d 323 (Ky. 1993) (substantial risk of death supports serious injury standard)
- Parson v. Commonwealth, 144 S.W.3d 775 (Ky. 2004) (prolonged impairment of health includes persistent pain and impairment)
- Britt v. Commonwealth, 512 S.W.2d 496 (Ky. 1974) (intoxication does not automatically render statements involuntary)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1980) ( Miranda warnings required only for custodial interrogation)
- Smith v. Commonwealth, 312 S.W.3d 353 (Ky. 2010) (Miranda standards and custodial interrogation guidance)
- McGinnis v. Wine, 959 S.W.2d 437 (Ky. 1998) (reliability and voluntariness of statements in suppression review)
- Reneer, 734 S.W.2d 794 (Ky. 1987) (proper sentencing procedure for PFO determinations)
- Owens v. Commonwealth, 329 S.W.3d 307 (Ky. 2011) (PFO sentencing procedure guidance)