Smith v. Commonwealth
2013 Ky. LEXIS 404
| Ky. | 2013Background
- Appellant Richard Smith was convicted in Wayne Circuit Court of murder and multiple counts of wanton endangerment and sentenced to twenty years.
- Shooting occurred at the Rigney residence on September 18, 2009, where Samantha, Jonathan, Gabe, Jazzlyn, Stacie Conn, and Austin James Conn were present on a porch.
- Appellant rode a horse up to the porch, fired four to six shots, and fled; Samantha was mortally wounded and died later.
- Deputies later located Appellant’s horse and beer in his saddlebag; after a delay, he voluntarily returned, was intoxicated, and gave a custodial police interview after Miranda warnings.
- During the interview, Appellant initially claimed he did not shoot anyone but later described possible circumstances involving a rifle; he consistently maintained he did not fire.
- The trial court admitted the interview over suppression objections, and a self-defense instruction was given at trial, with the jury ultimately convicting Appellant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of the post-arrest interview | Smith contends intoxication made the waiver involuntary | Smith asserts coercion or involuntariness due to intoxication | No reversible error; statements were voluntary under substantial evidence |
| Sufficiency of evidence for first-degree wanton endangerment | Endangerment shown by shooting near bystanders | No substantial danger shown; bullets did not strike others | Evidence sufficient to support verdict on both counts |
| Self-protection instruction error | Trial court failed to give definitional component of self-protection | Not preserved; palpable error review applies if preserved | No manifest injustice; error not reversible under palpable-error standard |
| Reasonable doubt instruction | Requests defining reasonable doubt should be given | KY precedent prohibits defining reasonable doubt | Instruction defining reasonable doubt was properly denied; no error |
Key Cases Cited
- Adcock v. Commonwealth, 967 S.W.2d 6 (Ky.1998) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings; factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence)
- Hill v. Anderson, 300 F.3d 679 (6th Cir.2002) (lesser coercion when intoxicated under police custody)
- Peters v. Commonwealth, 403 S.W.2d 686 (Ky.1966) (intoxication not per se involuntary confession; voluntariness depends on circumstances)
- Britt v. Commonwealth, 512 S.W.2d 496 (Ky.1974) (intoxication may render statements unreliable if mania or confabulation occurs)
- Martin v. Commonwealth, 409 S.W.3d 340 (Ky.2013) (preservation requirements; RCr 9.54(2) bar to palpable error review; distinction preserved vs. unpreserved errors)
- Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920 (Ky.App.2002) (application of preservation and standards of review)
- Callahan v. Commonwealth, 675 S.W.2d 391 (Ky.1984) (definition of reasonable doubt prohibited in jury instructions)
- United States v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986) (coercion essential predicate for involuntariness; due-process analysis)