Sluss v. Commonwealth
2012 Ky. LEXIS 144
| Ky. | 2012Background
- Appellant Sluss was convicted after a jury trial of murder, assault in the first degree, two counts of assault in the fourth degree, DUI, and tampering with physical evidence; he was sentenced to life imprisonment.
- The trial involved extensive voir dire due to publicity; more than fifty jurors were struck for cause.
- Appellant challenged juror conduct, alleging two jurors were Facebook friends with the victim’s mother, after trial.
- Evidence showed four medications and marijuana in the blood; expert testimony disputed intoxication at impact, but the court considered totality of circumstances.
- The Court remanded for a hearing on juror misconduct and abated consideration of remaining issues pending that resolution.
- The directed-verdict issue remained dispositive; the Court denied a directed verdict but remanded for juror-misconduct proceedings in the Martin Circuit Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the directed verdict denial reversible for murder? | Sluss argues insufficient evidence of wanton murder. | Commonwealth contends evidence supported wanton murder under totality of circumstances. | No reversible error; sufficient evidence supported murder under totality of circumstances. |
| Is a new trial or further hearing required for potential juror misconduct due to Facebook connections? | Appellant relied on false voir dire answers and possible biases from juror Facebook connections. | Judicial scrutiny and need for a hearing were insufficient given record; no immediate new trial. | Remand for a hearing to determine truth of voir dire responses and extent of juror exposure to the victim’s mother’s Facebook; abates other issues pending resolution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 975 S.W.2d 922 (Ky. 1998) (extreme indifference can be shown with intoxication in certain contexts)
- Hamilton v. Commonwealth, 560 S.W.2d 539 (Ky. 1977) (wanton murder when totality shows extreme indifference to life under intoxication)
- Cook v. Commonwealth, 129 S.W.3d 351 (Ky. 2004) (improper intoxication proof context considered in wanton murder)
- Love v. Commonwealth, 55 S.W.3d 816 (Ky. 2001) (mentions require totality of circumstances for wanton murder)
- Estep v. Commonwealth, 957 S.W.2d 191 (Ky. 1997) (recognizes wanton murder standard with indecent circumstances)
- Paenitz v. Commonwealth, 820 S.W.2d 480 (Ky. 1991) (juror falsehood during voir dire can require new trial when undiscoverable beforehand)
- Drury v. Franke, 247 Ky. 758, 57 S.W.2d 969 (Ky. 1933) (false juror information supports new trial when impactful)
- Combs v. Commonwealth, 356 S.W.2d 761 (Ky. 1962) (good cause for new trial if false juror information undiscovered before verdict)
- Gordon v. Commonwealth, 916 S.W.2d 176 (Ky. 1995) (general rule on bias requires proving bias with solid facts)
- Ne Camp v. Commonwealth, 311 Ky. 676, 225 S.W.2d 109 (1949) (juror misconduct outside deliberations can ground new trial)
- Polk v. Commonwealth, 574 S.W.2d 335 (Ky. App. 1978) (bias objections must be proven and timely)