Smith v. Commonwealth
2012 Ky. LEXIS 29
| Ky. | 2012Background
- K.D.'s Fuel was robbed at gunpoint; the robber wore two bandanas and drove a teal Geo Tracker taken from its owner.
- A witness, Lloyd Davis, identified Smith as the robber after the bandana covering his face came off.
- Townsend, a pawnshop owner, observed Smith driving the Geo Tracker near K.D.'s the night of the robbery.
- The Geo Tracker was later recovered and linked to Smith through ownership and timing.
- Smith was arrested September 28, 2008, indicted December 5, 2008, and ultimately convicted of first-degree robbery and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle; he was also found to be a second-degree PFO.
- Smith contends violations of speed trial rights, denial of a directed verdict, improper court costs on an indigent, and restitution concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy-trial violation, delay due to DNA testing | Smith’s speedy-trial rights were violated by the continuance | Commonwealth asserts delay justified by DNA testing; Smith caused some delay | No violation; Barker factors balance in Smith's favor |
| Directed verdict based on eyewitness unreliability | EYEWITNESSES were extremely unreliable supporting guilt | Evidence viewed in light favorable to Commonwealth supports guilt | denial of directed verdict affirmed; evidence sufficient for jury |
| Court costs on indigent defendant | Indigent cannot be taxed court costs | Costs may be imposed under current law | Costs reversed; remanded to determine if Smith is a 'poor person' under KRS 453.190(2) and unable to pay |
| Restitution specificity under KRS 532.033 | Restitution identified KD's Citgo; proper recipient | Recipient detail allegedly insufficient | Restitution properly directed to KD’s Citgo; no palpable error |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four-factor speedy-trial test applies to state cases)
- McDonald v. Commonwealth, 569 S.W.2d 134 (Ky.1978) (delay-context appropriate; triggering prejudice)
- Dunaway v. Commonwealth, 60 S.W.3d 563 (Ky.2001) (serious charges; presumptive prejudice for lengthy delays)
- Bratcher v. Commonwealth, 151 S.W.3d 332 (Ky.2004) (weighs delay reasons; prejudice balancing)
- Benham v. Commonwealth, 816 S.W.2d 186 (Ky.1991) (directed-verdict standard; sufficiency of evidence required)
- Sawhill v. Commonwealth, 660 S.W.2d 3 (Ky.1983) (directed-verdict framework; jury credibility concerns)
- Beaumont v. Commonwealth, 295 S.W.3d 60 (Ky.2009) (Jackson/v.-Virginia standard for sufficiency)
- Soto v. Commonwealth, 139 S.W.3d 827 (Ky.2004) (speedy-trial demand considerations)
- Maynes v. Commonwealth, 361 S.W.3d 922 (Ky.2012) (revised indigent-cost rule (court costs))