Robert Markham Taylor v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
2016 SC 000410
| Ky. | Oct 31, 2017Background
- On December 20, 2013, Alex Johnson was assaulted, killed, placed in a 55‑gallon barrel, and dumped in the Kentucky River; Robert Markham Taylor and Timothy Ballard were the last people seen with Johnson.
- Ballard testified that he and Taylor beat Johnson, returned him to the vehicle twice, placed his body in a barrel, and disposed of it; Ballard later pleaded guilty to related charges and led police to the body.
- Taylor admitted involvement in moving and concealing the body but testified that Ballard alone committed the murder; Taylor also acknowledged being a marijuana dealer and fleeing toward Mexico when arrested with cash, drugs, guns, and books.
- A Fayette County jury convicted Taylor of Murder, Kidnapping, and Tampering with Physical Evidence and recommended consecutive sentences totaling 49 years; Taylor appealed raising multiple evidentiary and instructional errors.
- The trial court denied Taylor’s claim that the kidnapping‑exemption to KRS 509.050 applied; it admitted cell‑phone data, texts, surveillance videos, the barrel, and items seized at arrest; it excluded Dr. Anderson’s testimony about Ballard’s KCPC evaluation; an asserted juror challenge post‑impanelment was also denied.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed, holding the exemption inapplicable, evidentiary rulings within discretion (or harmless error), and no reversible abuse of discretion on juror/chat challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Taylor) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of kidnapping exemption (KRS 509.050) | The detention was incidental to an underlying drug‑crime objective, so kidnapping charge should be exempted | Interference with liberty exceeded what was ordinarily incident to the underlying offense (murder) because victim was restrained, moved, and died after removal | Exemption does not apply; court properly refused the exemption and gave kidnapping instruction |
| Admission of cell‑phone data and text messages (KRE 401/403/404(b)) | Texts and prolonged presentation were unduly prejudicial and character evidence under 404(b) | Evidence showed drug business (motive), tied defendant to vehicle and post‑death coverup; probative value high and not unfairly prejudicial | Admission appropriate; not an abuse of discretion (or harmless if hearsay complaint waived) |
| Admission of post‑murder surveillance/video and Trust Lounge footage | Video of partying was character evidence and unfairly prejudicial | Video was relevant to rebut Taylor’s trauma/innocent‑bystander claim and to show post‑event conduct; not a criminal act itself | Admission proper; probative value outweighed any prejudice; no palpable error |
| Exclusion of Dr. Anderson re: Ballard KCPC evaluation | Testimony would show Ballard feigned PTSD/malingered, undermining his credibility and supporting alternate‑perpetrator defense | Commonwealth objected to relevance and privilege; court found records not going to memory/recall and sustained objection | Exclusion was error but harmless given other substantial aaltperp evidence; no reversible constitutional error |
Key Cases Cited
- Wood v. Commonwealth, 178 S.W.3d 500 (Ky. 2005) (defines analysis for when post‑offense restraint exceeds what is incidental to underlying crime)
- Arnold v. Commonwealth, 192 S.W.3d 420 (Ky. 2006) (kidnapping‑exemption statute to be strictly construed; burden on defendant)
- Dickerson v. Commonwealth, 486 S.W.3d 310 (Ky. 2016) (standard for admissibility of other‑acts evidence under KRE 404(b))
- White v. Commonwealth, 178 S.W.3d 470 (Ky. 2005) (extensive drug‑deal evidence admissible to prove motive)
- Webb v. Commonwealth, 387 S.W.3d 319 (Ky. 2012) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for evidentiary rulings and explanation of KRE 403 undue‑prejudice inquiry)
- Roe v. Commonwealth, 493 S.W.3d 814 (Ky. 2015) (relevance is a low threshold; "powerfully inclusionary")