McNeil v. Commonwealth
468 S.W.3d 858
| Ky. | 2015Background
- McNeil appeals a Jefferson Circuit Court judgment convicting him of first-degree robbery (KRS 515.020) and first-degree assault (KRS 508.010), with consecutive sentences of 10 and 18 years.
- The Commonwealth relied on eyewitness identifications from a photo pack after linking a Cricket-numbered phone to McNeil.
- The assault involved McNeil allegedly driving a car to injure Rose while Wheeler’s purse was taken; Rose suffered severe injuries.
- Wheeler and Rose identified McNeil from photo packs; McNeil did not testify.
- McNeil argues instructional errors, double jeopardy issues, and a hearsay/unauthenticated phone-record reference by police.”
- The court affirms, finding minor instructional flaws harmless and the other issues do not warrant relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the assault instruction omit a dangerous-instrument finding? | Commonwealth argues no reversible error. | McNeil contends missing dangerous-instrument element affected verdict. | Harmless error; conviction stands. |
| Did the robbery instruction improperly mix theories about a dangerous instrument, risking lack of unanimity? | Commonwealth contends multiple theories supported by evidence. | McNeil argues the erroneous theory jeopardizes unanimity. | Not reversible; error harmless given evidence and Blockburger framework. |
| Do separate convictions for robbery and assault violate double jeopardy? | Commonwealth relies on Blockburger and legislative intent allowing multiple punishments. | McNeil argues merger of offenses under KRS 505.020(l)(a)-(d). | Robbery and assault do not merge under Blockburger; multiple punishments permissible. |
| Did the use of an unauthenticated phone-record demonstrative violate hearsay rules and prejudice McNeil? | Commonwealth argues permissible demonstrative use; not offered as evidence. | McNeil claims hearsay and improper relevance; potential prejudice. | Harmless error; identifications at trial outweighed any prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Hara v. Commonwealth, 781 S.W.2d 514 (Ky. 1989) (merger analysis for robbery and assault under Blockburger)
- Taylor v. Commonwealth, 995 S.W.2d 355 (Ky. 1999) (distinct theories of robbery and assault; not merged under Blockburger)
- Fields v. Commonwealth, 219 S.W.3d 742 (Ky. 2007) (robbery not merging with assault under Blockburger)
- Dixon v. Commonwealth, 263 S.W.3d 583 (Ky. 2008) (strict Blockburger application; confirms merger rules exceptional)
- Goss v. Commonwealth, 428 S.W.3d 619 (Ky. 2014) (legality of multiple theories; unanimity concerns)
- Travis v. Commonwealth, 327 S.W.3d 456 (Ky. 2010) (unanimity in multi-theory instructions; harmless where supported)
- Hasch v. Commonwealth, 421 S.W.3d 349 (Ky. 2013) (unanimity and palpable errors; harmless where not misled)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (harmless-error analysis in omitted element scenarios)