Commonwealth v. Farmer
2014 Ky. LEXIS 17
| Ky. | 2014Background
- Farmer killed Daniel Popplewell on his property; Popplewell allegedly approached with two tobacco sticks.
- Farmer was indicted for murder under KRS 507.020.
- Farmer moved to dismiss, claiming immunity under KRS 503.085(1) for self-defense.
- Trial court denied the immunity motion, finding probable cause against immunity.
- Court of Appeals held it had interlocutory jurisdiction to review the denial of immunity.
- The Supreme Court reverses, holding no constitutional or statutory basis for such interlocutory appeal in criminal cases; collateral-order doctrine inapplicable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Court of Appeals empowered to hear this interlocutory appeal? | Farmer asserts appellate rights exist. | Commonwealth argues lack of jurisdiction. | No jurisdiction for interlocutory appeal in criminal cases. |
| Does the collateral order doctrine authorize immediate appeal of immunity denial? | Prater-like approach supports immediate review. | Collateral order doctrine does not apply to self-defense immunity. | Collateral order doctrine does not apply. |
| Does KRS 22A.020(4) confer interlocutory appeal rights to defendants in criminal cases? | Not explicitly relevant to defendants. | Only Commonwealth may appeal under limited conditions. | Only Commonwealth may appeal under strict conditions; defendant appeal not permitted. |
| Can civil case immunity precedents justify criminal interlocutory appeal? | Civil precedents analogize immunity review. | Civil rules do not translate to criminal context. | Civil precedent does not govern criminal interlocutory appeals. |
Key Cases Cited
- Breathitt Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Prater, 292 S.W.3d 883 (Ky. 2009) (immediate review of immunity in civil cases)
- Rodgers v. Commonwealth, 285 S.W.3d 740 (Ky. 2009) (immunity decisions and dismissal standards under KRS 503.085)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (U.S. 1985) (collateral order doctrine; collateral review of immunity)
- Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (U.S. 1982) (collateral order doctrine elements)
- Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (U.S. 2006) (limits of collateral order doctrine)
- Lauro Lines s.r.l v. Chasser, 490 U.S. 495 (U.S. 1989) (collateral order doctrine)
- Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139 (U.S. 1993) (collateral order doctrine)
- Crawley v. Kunzman, 585 S.W.2d 387 (Ky. 1979) (jurisdictional remedies; writs)