Commonwealth v. Parker
2013 Ky. LEXIS 403
| Ky. | 2013Background
- Victim Susan Martin was robbed in a Target parking lot; she gave police detailed descriptions of two assailants and later identified them from store security stills.
- A witness reported seeing the suspects in a nearby neighborhood; officers detained Justin Masengale, Martin identified him at the scene, and Masengale implicated Joseph Parker as the other assailant.
- Parker was arrested later and found with items belonging to Martin.
- Masengale moved to suppress Martin’s out-of-court identification as tainted by pre-identification actions and alleged Brady violations; Parker joined the motion arguing Masengale’s taint likewise tainted identification of Parker.
- At the suppression hearing Martin did not testify; the trial court denied the motion, finding the show-up identification unduly suggestive but nonetheless reliable under the Biggers factors.
- The Court of Appeals reversed for lack of evidentiary foundation (noting absence of Martin’s testimony); the Commonwealth appealed to the Supreme Court of Kentucky, which reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge co-defendant's identification | Commonwealth: Parker lacked standing to challenge identification of Masengale | Parker: He may challenge identification because it tainted identification of him | Court resolved case on merits; did not decide standing (concurrence urged addressing standing) |
| Preservation of issue for appeal | Commonwealth: Issue preserved adequately | Parker: Preservation contested | Court did not reach; resolved on merits |
| Admissibility of Martin’s out-of-court (show-up) ID of Masengale | Commonwealth: Although show-ups are suggestive, totality of circumstances (Biggers factors) made ID reliable | Parker/Masengale: Pre-identification actions and show-up were unduly suggestive and identification should be suppressed | Court: Show-up was unduly suggestive but under totality of circumstances (opportunity to view, attention, accurate prior descriptions, witness certainty, short time lapse) ID was reliable; suppression denial affirmed |
| Brady claim (exculpatory evidence) | Masengale: Commonwealth failed to disclose exculpatory evidence | Commonwealth: No Brady violation | Court of Appeals did not address; parties did not raise on appeal to Supreme Court, so Court did not address it |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. Commonwealth, 142 S.W.3d 645 (Ky. 2004) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings and two-step identification analysis)
- Dillingham v. Commonwealth, 995 S.W.2d 377 (Ky. 1999) (use of suggestiveness/reliability framework for identifications)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (five-factor test for reliability of identifications)
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) (identification due process principles)
- Savage v. Commonwealth, 920 S.W.2d 512 (Ky. 1995) (show-up identifications are inherently suggestive but permissible if reliable under Biggers)
- Cantrell v. Commonwealth, 288 S.W.3d 291 (Ky. 2009) (trial judge may draw reasonable inferences as factfinder)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (standing limits for asserting another’s Fourth Amendment rights)
- Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (1980) (limits on asserting others’ search-and-seizure rights)