Smith v. Commonwealth
2012 Ky. LEXIS 96
| Ky. | 2012Background
- Appellant Travis Smith, 18, member of Gangster Disciples, was charged as an accomplice to burglary, robbery, and assault in Hickman County.
- Dublin, the 74-year-old victim, recognized Appellant during the home invasion that occurred after Dublin observed a $100 bill.
- Accomplices Crumble, Hunt, and Thomas entered Dublin’s residence; weapons included a gun and a knife; valuables were taken.
- Appellant allegedly stayed outside; later he confessed and identified his alleged accomplices.
- Jury convicted Smith of first-degree burglary by complicity, first-degree robbery by complicity, and second-degree assault by complicity; total sentence 22 years; court costs and restitution imposed.
- Appellant appeals alleging instructional error and improper court costs for an indigent defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of instructional error | Smith tendered alternative instructions but did not object during instruction conference. | Corrective instructions were preserved under tendered instructions. | Not properly preserved; review under palpable error (RCr 10.26). |
| Necessity of knowing weapon involvement for burglary/robbery by complicity | Instrs required knowledge that accomplices would be armed, elevating degree. | Cases permit accomplice liability without knowing weapon; aggravated factors need not be known. | No requirement to prove specific knowledge of weapons for burglary/robbery by complicity. |
| Second-degree assault complicity instruction adequacy | Instr did not require intent that victim be assaulted or knowledge accomplices would be armed. | Instr properly linked complicity and the result; needs only accomplice’s aid and eventual injury. | Instructions, read as a whole with the complicity definition, properly informed the elements. |
| Court costs against indigent defendant | Imposition of costs was improper where Appellant was indigent and entitled to appeal at state expense. | Appellant was properly assessed costs under statutory framework. | Costs reversed and remanded to determine if Smith is a “poor person” under KRS 453.190(2); Maynes governs standard. |
| Overall disposition of convictions | No additional issues stated beyond instructional and costs claims. | No further objections to judgments beyond the preserved/Palpable-error claims. | Judgment affirmed on convictions; remand on costs to determine proper ownership of “poor person” status. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skinner v. Commonwealth, 864 S.W.2d 290 (Ky. 1993) (accomplices may be liable for aggravated offenses without knowledge of aggravating factors)
- Yeager v. Commonwealth, 599 S.W.2d 458 (Ky. 1980) (accomplice liability can reflect principal’s aggravated conduct)
- Ray v. Commonwealth, 550 S.W.2d 482 (Ky. 1977) (accomplice liability does not require the actor’s own injury in some robbery contexts)
- Crawley v. Commonwealth, 107 S.W.3d 197 (Ky. 2003) (instruction drafting should link complicity to defined defendant; wording matters)
- Maynes v. Commonwealth, 361 S.W.3d 922 (Ky. 2012) (redefines proper inquiry for court costs: focus on ‘poor person’ under KRS 453.190(2))