Dustin Sparks v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
2017 SC 000206
| Ky. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- Defendant Dustin Sparks attended a December 4, 2015 party where heavy drinking and marijuana use occurred; an altercation with victim Benjamin Brewer resulted in Brewer being stabbed in the neck and later dying.
- Sparks possessed and displayed an army knife/bottle opener at the party; an exchange escalated after Sparks nudged Brewer and Brewer swung at Sparks.
- Police arrived, photographed Sparks covered in blood, and Detective Jesse Armstrong later interviewed and recorded Sparks after giving Miranda warnings.
- At trial Sparks asserted self-defense; a jury convicted him of murder and the court sentenced him to 35 years.
- On appeal Sparks raised two principal claims: (1) the trial court erred by admitting his recorded statements after he purportedly invoked his right to remain silent, and (2) the court erred by limiting cross-examination of Detective Armstrong about the officer’s statements misstating the law of self-protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sparks) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by admitting recorded interrogation after Sparks allegedly invoked his right to remain silent | Sparks contends he made multiple assertions of the right to remain silent during the interview (e.g., "I'm not gonna say another fucking word" and "I'm not talking to you") and the interrogation should have been suppressed after those invocations | Commonwealth argues Sparks' remarks were ambiguous/inaudible or were not unequivocal invocations; Sparks continued speaking and thereby waived or did not clearly invoke Miranda rights; any error would be harmless because admissions of stabbing and self-defense occurred earlier | Court affirmed: statements were not unequivocal invocations; Sparks continued to speak after the remarks; even if error occurred, admission of remaining interrogation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because critical admissions preceded the contested points |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by restricting cross-examination about Detective Armstrong's misstatements of self-defense law | Sparks argues Armstrong misstated the law (omitting that deadly force may be justified to prevent serious physical injury) and Sparks should be allowed to cross-examine the officer on that misstatement | Commonwealth relied on the trial judge's control of evidence and offered an admonition to the jury to disregard the officer's legal summary; the judge declined to let counsel instruct the jury on law from witness testimony | Court affirmed: limitation was not an abuse of discretion; the judge admonished the jury to disregard Armstrong’s legal statements and an admonition was sufficient under the circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975) (interrogation must cease if suspect indicates desire to remain silent)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) (invocation of right to counsel or silence must be unequivocal)
- Buster v. Commonwealth, 364 S.W.3d 157 (Ky. 2012) (Miranda invocation need not be formal but must be clear)
- Meskimen v. Commonwealth, 435 S.W.3d 526 (Ky. 2013) (suspect must clearly articulate desire to cease questioning such that a reasonable officer would understand)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (constitutional error may be upheld only if harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)