Peacher v. Commonwealth
2013 Ky. LEXIS 11
Ky.2013Background
- Joint trial of Peacher and Allen for Christopher and Wyatt abuse and Christopher murder; convictions for murder, first-degree assault, and first-degree criminal abuse; separate Wyatt abuse counts; cumulative sentences: Peacher 70 years, Allen 47 years; appeals consolidated.
- Redacted statements of Allen and Peacher admitted; Crawford framework applied to Bruton/ Richardson-Gray line of cases; joinder examined under RCr 6.18 and 9.16.
- Medical testimony showed extensive blunt-force trauma to Christopher with head and abdominal injuries; timing estimated to within 48 hours after custody began; Wyatt also bruised and cigarette-burned.
- Pretrial motions to sever/relate ChristopherWyatt charges denied; suppression hearing held on Peacher’s statements; statements admitted redacted.
- Joinder advantages acknowledged; court found no reversible error in the joint trial overall; no palpable error in closing or due process aside from minor misdefinitions of complicity.
- Both defendants’ convictions affirmed; no entitlement to relief on severance, suppression, or closing-argument issues; Smith-like caution in instructions maintained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joint trial admissibility of redacted statements | Allen’s statements incriminated Peacher | Confrontation Clause violated; Bruton issue | No reversible error; Richardson compliance adequate |
| Joinder of Christopher and Wyatt charges | Joinder preserved efficiency and consistency | Prejudice risk; severance required | No reversible error; prejudice not shown |
| Sufficiency of complicity instruction | Evidence supported complicity | Instruction misdefined complicity | Harmless error; instructions cured by other correct portions |
| Distinction between murder and assault instructions | Instructions indistinct | Distinct results evidence; no indistinguishability | Instructions properly distinguished murder vs. assault |
| Suppression of Peacher’s statements | Custody triggered Miranda warnings | Interviews non-custodial | Not in custody; Miranda warnings not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (Confrontation Clause in joint trials; redacted statements)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1987) (Redacted statements admissible against declarant with cautionary instruction)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause limits testimonial hearsay)
- Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (U.S. 1998) (Redacted statements in joint trials must not incriminate co-defendant)
- Howes v. Fields, 132 S. Ct. 1193 (U.S. 2012) (Custody analysis for interrogation)
- United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438 (U.S. 1986) (Harmless error analysis for misjoinder)