Meskimen v. Commonwealth, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 93

Hurst, a homeless Lexington resident, was murdered in 2010; Meskimen, also homeless, lived with Donna Franklin at the time.
Meskimen and Franklin consumed alcohol at a campsite, then Meskimen left to buy more whiskey and encountered Hurst in the median.
A fight occurred; Meskimen later discovered Hurst was dead and buried the body; he and Franklin moved to a motel for several days drinking.
Franklin called police twice; police later located Hurst’s body and arrested Meskimen; he was charged with murder, tampering with evidence, AI, and trespass.
At police headquarters, Meskimen was questioned for about an hour and sought hospital care for head injuries; he later gave two hospital statements admitting killing Hurst.
Jury found Meskimen guilty of first-degree manslaughter, tampering with physical evidence, AI, and third-degree trespass; jury recommended concurrent 20-year manslaughter and 5-year tampering sentences, later ordered consecutive for 25 years; a subsequent contempt hearing added six months.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether coerced statements violated rights	Meskimen argues interrogation violated right to counsel and silence.	Commonwealth contends statements were voluntary and not clearly invoked silence.	No suppression error; statements voluntary and not invoking silence clearly.
Admission of hospital statements after 48 hours	McLaughlin requires suppression if no probable cause within 48 hours absent emergencies.	Emergency/extraordinary circumstance justified delay; hospitalization itself constitutes emergency.	No palpable error; hospital delay justified by McLaughlin emergency exception.
Daubert admissibility of hair evidence without Daubert hearing	Hair analysis is unreliable and requires Daubert hearing.	Hair analysis has long been admitted; trial court properly allowed it and could take judicial notice.	No abuse of discretion; hair evidence admissible; Daubert hearing not required.
Consecutive contempt sentence	Contempt sentence was improper given timing and scope.	Contempt valid for willful conduct during proceedings.	No abuse of discretion; contempt justified by conduct and context.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (mandatory suppression if silence invoked after warnings)
Quisenberry v. Commonwealth, 336 S.W.3d 19 (Ky. 2011) (ambiguous statements not clear invocation of right to silence)
Anderson v. Commonwealth, 352 S.W.3d 577 (Ky. 2011) (two-step suppression review; factual findings substantial)
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1991) (48-hour probable cause rule with emergency exception)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (reliability standard for scientific evidence; judicial notice possible)
Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U.S. 143 (U.S. 1944) (extensive sleep deprivation as coercive interrogation technique not concluded here)
Ragland v. Commonwealth, 191 S.W.3d 569 (Ky. 2006) (reliability concerns of long-accepted forensic methods; junk science caution)
Johnson v. Commonwealth, 12 S.W.3d 258 (Ky. 1999) (Daubert-related reliability and judicial notice considerations)