Miller v. Commonwealth
2011 Ky. LEXIS 179
| Ky. | 2011Background
- In 2006 Miller was convicted of possession of a controlled substance first degree and PFO I, receiving 20 years.
- On appeal the conviction was affirmed but remanded for a new penalty phase due to improper indictment amendment after verdict.
- During the new penalty phase, the Commonwealth presented Miller's three prior felony convictions and parole violations through Perry Parrish.
- Miller and his sister testified; the jury found Miller to be a PFO I and recommended 20 years; the trial judge sentenced accordingly.
- Miller challenged admission of uncharged acts, the presence of an armed guard, and failure to strike a cross-section juror panel; two first claims were treated as palpable error, the third as abuse of discretion.
- The court affirmed, finding no reversible error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of prior uncharged acts at penalty phase | Miller: improper and highly prejudicial. | Commonwealth: relevant to sentencing under statute and case law. | Not reversible; error not manifest. |
| Armed guard presence at penalty phase | Guard violated due process and fair trial. | Security measure; not prejudicial. | Not reversible; guard presence did not violate rights. |
| Jury cross-section representation | Adair County lacked African American representation; under Duren framework. | No prima facie showing of underrepresentation or systematic exclusion. | Trial court did not err; absent prima facie showing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garrison v. Commonwealth, 338 S.W.3d 257 (Ky. 2011) (parole violations admissible for sentencing purposes in penalty phase)
- Foster v. Commonwealth, 827 S.W.2d 670 (Ky. 1991) (uncharged misconduct may be admissible but highly prejudicial in joint penalty phases)
- Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560 (1986) (presence of guards not necessarily prejudicial to trial fairness)
- Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (U.S. 1975) (jury cross-section requirement; not every jury must mirror community)
- Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1979) (framework for proving fair cross-section violations)
- Johnson v. Commonwealth, 292 S.W.3d 889 (Ky. 2009) (proof requirements for fair cross-section in Kentucky)
- Ratliff v. Commonwealth, 194 S.W.3d 258 (Ky. 2006) (preservation and review standards for trial errors)
- Cornelison v. Commonwealth, 990 S.W.2d 609 (Ky. 1999) (statutory list of admissible sentencing information is non-exhaustive)