Michael Taylor v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
2016 SC 000119
| Ky. | Sep 26, 2017Background
- Michael Taylor was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance and designated a first-degree persistent felony offender; trial court sentenced him to concurrent 20-year terms and entered judgment.
- Taylor moved to dismiss the indictments on multiple grounds before and during trial; the motions were denied and he proceeded to trial.
- Central factual/legal points: delayed production of ~192 pages of discovery about the Commonwealth’s confidential informant (produced Dec. 31, received by defense counsel Jan. 4, trial Jan. 5); testimony by a detective that he found the informant credible; a circuit clerk’s inadvertent mention of an amended prior charge; cross-examination of Taylor’s parole officer about the underlying offense; reliance on a 2007 conviction to enhance sentencing under the PFO statute; and an asserted underrepresentation of African Americans in the venire.
- Taylor preserved some issues (discovery/dismissal, bolstering challenge, jury composition) and failed to preserve others (certain cross-examination objections); appellate review applied abuse-of-discretion or palpable-error standards as appropriate.
- The Court rejected all of Taylor’s grounds for reversal and affirmed the convictions and sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery delay / motion to dismiss indictment | Commonwealth produced exculpatory material too late (one day before trial); dismissal required for prejudice and speedy-trial concerns | Late production did not amount to Brady and trial court could fashion lesser remedies (continuance or evidence exclusion); defendant refused those alternatives | No abuse of discretion in denying dismissal; prejudice did not warrant dismissal and defendant cross-examined the informant |
| Alleged improper bolstering of confidential informant | Detective’s statements that informant was "trustworthy/credible" amounted to improper bolstering and vouching requiring reversal | Any error was harmless because informant’s credibility was later attacked on cross-exam and evidence against defendant was strong | Error, if any, was harmless; no reversible error given impeachment and precedent finding similar statements nonprejudicial |
| KRS 532.055 / mention of amended prior charge by clerk | Clerk’s testimony mentioning an amended prior charge improperly introduced dismissed/amended charges at penalty phase, requiring relief | Mention was inadvertent; Commonwealth did not elicit or emphasize it as in Blane; context differs | Not palpable error; mistake did not reach Blane-level prejudice and conviction stands |
| Cross-examination about parole offense | Commonwealth improperly asked parole officer about specific offense leading to parole | Taylor’s counsel failed to object and appeared to consent at bench conference; issue waived | Waived; no palpable error found |
| Use of 2007 conviction for PFO sentencing (KRS 532.080) | Application of PFO statute was improper because 2007 conviction allegedly enhanced from misdemeanor to felony such that statute’s exception should apply | Commonwealth amended indictment to treat charged offenses as first-time offenses, invoking statutory protection; jury convicted on first-offense instructions | No violation of KRS 532.080(10); sentencing enhancement proper and supported by record |
| Fair cross-section (racial composition of venire) | African Americans underrepresented (1 of ~75 jurors; county ~3% African American) due to systematic exclusion | Small numerical shortfall not unfair or unreasonable under Mash; defendant failed prong two and thus fails claim | Claim fails the Mash test (prong two); no systematic exclusion shown and denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Grider v. Commonwealth, 390 S.W.3d 803 (Ky. App.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for motions to dismiss)
- McDaniel v. Commonwealth, 415 S.W.3d 643 (Ky.) (evidentiary rulings review / abuse of discretion)
- Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1979) (fair-cross-section test framework)
- Mash v. Commonwealth, 376 S.W.3d 548 (Ky. 2012) (application of Duren test in Kentucky)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution's duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Fairrow v. Commonwealth, 175 S.W.3d 601 (Ky. 2005) (improper witness-character evidence may be harmless when credibility is later impeached)
- Blane v. Commonwealth, 364 S.W.3d 140 (Ky. 2012) (prejudice from eliciting amended/dismissed prior charges at sentencing)
- Wright v. Commonwealth, 467 S.W.3d 238 (Ky. 2015) (officer testimony about informant credibility analyzed for harmlessness)
- Winstead v. Commonwealth, 283 S.W.3d 678 (Ky. 2009) (harmless error standard for nonconstitutional evidentiary errors)