Matlock v. Commonwealth
2011 Ky. App. LEXIS 31
| Ky. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Matlock was arrested on April 25, 2008 for possession of marijuana after an officer found drugs.
- Chief Goforth testified that Matlock voluntarily handed over marijuana and that crack cocaine was found in the vehicle after arrest.
- Matlock sought to suppress the physical evidence; the circuit court denied the suppression motion without an evidentiary hearing.
- At trial, Matlock testified that the drugs were planted; he was convicted of trafficking and possession.
- The Commonwealth conceded the circuit court erred by not conducting a hearing, but argued harmless error due to timeliness and lack of disputes.
- This Court remands for an evidentiary hearing on Matlock’s suppression motion because material facts are in dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing | Matlock argues RCr 9.78 required a hearing. | Matlock seeks a hearing to resolve factual disputes. | Remanded for an evidentiary hearing. |
| Whether suppression objection was timely under Shanks and Higdon | Objection was timely under Higdon/Shanks framework. | Timeliness acceptable under either standard. | Objection timely; timing supports hearing. |
| Whether the failure to hold a hearing is harmless given disputed facts | Disputed facts require resolution; harmless error cannot be presumed. | Without material disputes, error would be harmless. | Not harmless; remand for hearing required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shanks v. Commonwealth, 504 S.W.2d 709 (Ky. 1974) (timeliness depends on when evidence is first offered)
- Higdon v. Commonwealth, 473 S.W.2d 110 (Ky. 1971) (timeliness tied to first witness regarding search and seizure)
- Mills v. Commonwealth, 996 S.W.2d 473 (Ky. 1999) (hearing required unless no material disputes; otherwise harmless error if none)