Travis Jeter v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 531 S.W.3d 488

In January 2015 Joyce Perry was assaulted and robbed in a mall parking lot; she suffered serious facial injuries. A mall patron, Jean Albrecht, saw a man leave Perry’s car and later identified the defendant at trial.
Mall security video showed a man forcing his way into Perry’s car and exiting via the rear door; investigators traced a customized pickup from the video to the defendant’s mother and located the truck at her home.
Items recovered in searches (glasses from Perry’s car, a jacket with possible blood, drug paraphernalia) produced DNA linking the glasses to Jeter and the jacket to Perry; a spoon and pipe yielded the drug charges.
Jeter’s defense was mistaken identity/alibi: he admitted drug use that day and claimed someone else had his truck; defense argued another person could have left the glasses and worn the jacket.
Before trial Jeter moved to exclude eyewitness identification (motion in limine), to sever the robbery from drug charges, and sought a last-minute continuance to pursue AT&T records; the trial court denied all three motions. Jury convicted; trial court imposed concurrent sentences (life for robbery as persistent felon, plus terms for drug offenses).

Issue	Jeter's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Admissibility of in-court eyewitness ID	Albrecht’s in-court ID was unreliable and (Jeter says) should be excluded under Biggers due to lack of pretrial testing	The ID was spontaneous, not state-orchestrated; Biggers does not apply to untainted volunteer in-court IDs	Court held Perry controls: Biggers due-process rule not triggered because ID was not product of state action; admission proper
Denial of last-minute continuance	Counsel needed more time to obtain GPS/AT&T evidence critical to alibi; affidavit unnecessary because attorneys are officers of the court	Motion lacked the sworn, subscribed, certified affidavit required by RCr 9.04 and showed no due diligence or materiality	Denial affirmed: affidavit requirement and lack of diligence justified refusal to continue
Severance of robbery and drug charges	Joinder prejudiced Jeter; drug evidence and charges improperly bolstered robbery case	Jeter’s admitted drug use was part of his alibi and motive; drug evidence would be admissible in a separate robbery trial	No abuse of discretion: joinder not prejudicial because drug evidence was relevant and admissible for motive and to rebut alibi

Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (establishes two-step due process test for exclude suggestive out-of-court identifications)
Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (2012) (due-process check applies only where law enforcement used an unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure)
Commonwealth v. Parker, 409 S.W.3d 350 (Ky. 2013) (discusses the two-step Biggers reliability inquiry in Kentucky practice)
Northington v. Commonwealth, 459 S.W.3d 404 (Ky. App. 2015) (held Biggers does not apply to identifications made for the first time in court)
Roark v. Commonwealth, 90 S.W.3d 24 (Ky. 2002) (joinder prejudice test: whether evidence for each offense would be admissible in separate trials)
Hammond v. Commonwealth, 366 S.W.3d 425 (Ky. 2012) (prejudice standard for reversal when joinder is challenged)