Morgan v. Commonwealth
2014 Ky. LEXIS 10
Ky.2014Background
- Kara Rudolph, a Convenience for Less cashier, was robbed at gunpoint by Samuel Morgan on Dec 4, 2011.
- Morgan entered after Rudolph unlocked the door and used a security code to re-enter; he demanded money.
- Robbery involved over $700 from the register and safe; Morgan fled with loot.
- Investigators used surveillance video and photos to identify Morgan; evidence linked him via car and acquaintances.
- Morgan was charged with first-degree robbery and persistent felony offender (PFO) in the first degree; convicted by jury.
- Morgan appeals on three issues and challenges the trial court’s rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of lay identifications from video | Morgan argues identifications violate KRE rules | Commonwealth contends identifications are relevant to identity | Identifications were admissible; testimony was proper lay identification |
| Denial of continuance | Morgan claims denial deprived him of due process | Commonwealth claims no abuse of discretion; continuance not warranted | No abuse of discretion; continuance denial affirmed |
| Directed verdict for first-degree robbery | Morgan asserts evidence is insufficient for conviction | Commonwealth presents substantial evidence of guilt | Evidence sufficient; denial of directed verdict affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Love v. Commonwealth, 55 S.W.3d 816 (Ky. 2001) (relevance standard and evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Snodgrass v. Commonwealth, 814 S.W.2d 579 (Ky. 1991) (continuance decision reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Cuzick v. Commonwealth, 276 S.W.3d 260 (Ky. 2009) (lay opinion testimony cannot interpret video evidence; invades jury's province)
- Gordon v. Commonwealth, 916 S.W.2d 176 (Ky. 1995) (lay witnesses should not interpret video evidence; jury decides what tape shows)
- United States v. White, 639 F.3d 331 (7th Cir. 2011) (lay witness may identify from photo if basis exists for reliable identification)
- Jett v. Commonwealth, 436 S.W.2d 788 (Ky. 1969) (impeachment and substantive impeachment evidence principles)
- Taylor v. Commonwealth, 545 S.W.2d 76 (Ky. 1976) (overwhelming evidence can sustain conviction despite other deficiencies)
- Roark v. Commonwealth, 90 S.W.3d 24 (Ky. 2002) (credibility and weight of witnesses are for the jury)
- Mills v. Commonwealth, 996 S.W.2d 473 (Ky. 1999) (recognizes limits on lay interpretation of video evidence)
- Padgett v. Commonwealth, 312 S.W.3d 336 (Ky. 2010) (partially overruled in other grounds; relevance to evidence rules)
- Lawton v. Commonwealth, 354 S.W.3d 565 (Ky. 2011) (standard for directed verdict and sufficiency of evidence)
- Benham v. Commonwealth, 816 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1991) (directed-verdict standard; re-emphasizes appellate review framework)