Jacobsen v. Commonwealth
376 S.W.3d 600
| Ky. | 2012Background
- Jacobsen was convicted by a Fayette Circuit Court jury of first-degree robbery and sentenced to 30 years, enhanced as a second-degree persistent felony offender (PFO).
- The robbery occurred at a Cash Advance store on Versailles Road in Lexington; the robber used a gun and demanded over $500.
- Two eyewitnesses, Fallon and Harris, identified Jacobsen from a six-photo array and corroborating details placed him with a white Chevrolet S-10.
- Jacobsen presented an alibi defense with three witnesses and offered Dr. Fulero’s testimony on memory reliability.
- The defense challenged eyewitness identifications, voir dire penalty-range disclosure, and two prosecutorial actions; the court denied relief, and on appeal the conviction and sentence were challenged but affirmed.
- The core issues include identification reliability, penalty-range voir dire, alleged prosecutorial errors, and whether retrial was needed for guilt given a penalty-phase mistrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eyewitness identifications admissibility | Fallon and Harris identifications tainted by suggestive array | Array unduly suggestive due to photo differences | Array not unduly suggestive; identifications admissible |
| Penalty-range voir dire scope | Right to consider full penalties, including PFO | Lawson framework limits to non-PFO ranges | Lawson framework applied; penalty-range voir dire limited to indicted offense without PFO |
| Prosecutor's voir dire reference to uncharged act | Uncharged offense tampering with evidence suggested | Admonition could cure without mistrial | No mistrial; admonition cured potential prejudice |
| Prosecutor's closing argument about studies | Prosecutor misstated evidence about studies | No evidence of other studies; admonition adequate | Admonition cured error; no mistrial warranted |
| Retrial after golden-rule mistrial | New guilt trial needed for fair punishment | Refunded to penalty-phase retrial only; no guilt re-trial required | Penalty-phase retrial permitted; guilt phase not required anew |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1968) (due process screening of eyewitness identification reliability)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1977) (reliability assessment in eyewitness identifications)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716 (U.S. 2012) (due process framework for identification reliability)
- Lawson v. Commonwealth, 53 S.W.3d 534 (Ky. 2001) (limits penalty-range voir dire to non-PFO ranges to assess jury’s role)
- Johnson v. Commonwealth, 105 S.W.3d 430 (Ky. 2003) (admonition can cure improper references to uncharged acts under certain conditions)
- Price v. Commonwealth, 59 S.W.3d 878 (Ky. 2001) (admonitions in response to improper closing arguments)
- Winstead v. Commonwealth, 327 S.W.3d 386 (Ky. 2010) (admonitions can cure prosecutorial error in closing)
- Oakes v. Commonwealth, 320 S.W.3d 50 (Ky. 2010) (assessment of suggestiveness in photo arrays)
- St. Clair v. Commonwealth, 319 S.W.3d 300 (Ky. 2010) (re-sentencing procedures and admissible evidence in PFO cases)
- Boone v. Commonwealth, 821 S.W.2d 813 (Ky. 1992) (re-sentencing procedures, relevance of guilt-phase evidence)
- Williamson v. Commonwealth, 767 S.W.2d 323 (Ky. 1989) (approval of re-sentencing procedures for PFO cases)