Northington v. Commonwealth
2015 Ky. App. LEXIS 34
| Ky. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- April 17, 2010: Joshua Melton was assaulted with a tire iron at work; William Northington was later indicted for first-degree assault and as a persistent felony offender.
- Northington’s ex-wife, Tiffany Maxie, told police she drove Northington to the scene; she was expected to testify for the Commonwealth but died before trial.
- Discovery shows confusion over whether Melton was shown a pretrial photo pack assembled by Detective Newton (later lost); Melton gave inconsistent statements about any identification.
- Northington moved to suppress Melton’s in-court identification and to preclude in-court ID by three other witnesses (Job, Burns, Breckenridge); the trial court denied suppression without an evidentiary hearing or written findings.
- Northington entered a conditional guilty plea reserving appeal of the suppression rulings; this appeal challenges the denial of suppression for Melton’s ID and the other witnesses’ in-court IDs.
Issues
| Issue | Northington's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Melton’s in-court ID should be suppressed because a lost photo pack may have been unduly suggestive | Photo pack likely shown and lost; rebuttable presumption of suggestiveness; without hearing, ID may be tainted | Trial court presumed no suggestiveness and denied suppression | Vacated and remanded for evidentiary hearing; if pack shown and unavailable, apply Grady presumption and, if suggestive, apply Biggers factors to determine reliability |
| Whether the trial court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing on Melton’s ID motion | Hearing required under RCr; material factual disputes make failure non-harmless error | Trial court declined further inquiry and denied motion | Error: remand for hearing with written findings per RCr; failure to hold hearing not harmless given factual conflicts |
| Whether first-time in-court IDs by Job, Burns, and Breckenridge should have been excluded as unduly suggestive | In-court ID as a de facto suggestive "show-up" because Northington would be the only Black male at counsel’s table; requires Biggers analysis | No pretrial suggestive procedure used; Biggers applies only to pretrial confrontations | Affirmed as to these witnesses; any error in failing to hold a hearing was harmless because no pretrial identification occurred |
| Whether the trial court must apply Biggers to first-time courtroom identifications | Biggers should govern courtroom show-ups that are inherently suggestive | Biggers applies to pretrial identifications only; first-time courtroom IDs are admissible absent prior suggestive encounter | Court declined to extend Biggers to first-time in-court IDs; left any change to the Kentucky Supreme Court |
Key Cases Cited
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (United States Supreme Court) (establishes factors to test reliability of identifications following suggestive pretrial procedures)
- Grady v. Commonwealth, 325 S.W.3d 333 (Ky. 2010) (lost pretrial identification materials create rebuttable presumption of suggestiveness)
- King v. Commonwealth, 142 S.W.3d 645 (Ky. 2004) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Merriweather v. Commonwealth, 99 S.W.3d 448 (Ky. 2003) (pretrial show-ups are inherently suggestive and require reliability showing)
- Russell v. Commonwealth, 490 S.W.2d 726 (Ky. 1973) (court rejected constitutional requirement of pretrial controlled lineup before admissibility of in-court IDs)
- Matlock v. Commonwealth, 344 S.W.3d 138 (Ky. App. 2011) (failure to hold suppression hearing with material factual disputes cannot be harmless error)
- Hunt v. Commonwealth, 304 S.W.3d 15 (Ky. 2009) (failure to hold evidentiary hearing on suppression motions reviewed for harmless error)