Whittle v. Commonwealth
2011 Ky. LEXIS 141
Ky.2011Background
- Police observed Whittle fleeing on foot and discarding a bag, later found to contain cocaine.
- Upon arrest for trafficking, officers recovered marijuana, $906, a cell phone, and a knife on Whittle.
- Whittle was charged with trafficking, tampering with physical evidence, possession of marijuana, and, as a first-degree PFO.
- Whittle was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 30 years (trafficking and tampering consecutive) plus 12 months for marijuana (concurrent).
- On direct appeal, the Court reversed the trafficking and tampering convictions for Confrontation Clause issues; possession of marijuana affirmed.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the venire juror befriended with a state trooper should have been struck for cause | Whittle argues bias from friendship required strike for cause. | Whittle contends total voir dire shows bias; denial was an abuse of discretion. | No abuse; the juror’s mere possibility of bias did not require strike. |
| Whether lab report identifying cocaine violated Confrontation Clause | Whittle argues lab report is testimonial; no live witness to confront. | State argues business records exception and non-testimonial nature under Bullcoming/Melendez-Diaz. | Confrontation violation; trafficking and tampering reversals affirmed; marijuana possession affirmed as to harmlessness. |
| Whether Commonwealth proved Whittle was on parole for PFO at arrest | Whittle challenges sufficiency of parole status proof. | State contends sufficient evidence supports PFO enhancement. | Not decisive on retrial here; PFO status remains subject to proof if retried; no double jeopardy bar. |
| Whether the 30-year total sentence violates Kentucky law | Whittle asserts improper sentencing under PFO/dual convictions. | State argues proper alignment of penalties. | Consecutive-sentencing issue deemed moot after reversal of underlying felonies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennington v. Commonwealth, 316 S.W.2d 221 (Ky.1958) (bias evaluation requires voir dire totality of circumstances)
- Soto v. Commonwealth, 139 S.W.3d 827 (Ky.2004) (abuse of discretion standard for dine strike decisions)
- Montgomery v. Commonwealth, 819 S.W.2d 713 (Ky.1991) (totality of voir dire governs bias findings)
- Penman v. Commonwealth, 194 S.W.3d 237 (Ky.2006) (friendship with law enforcement does not automatically bias jurors)
- White v. Commonwealth, 770 S.W.2d 222 (Ky.1989) (PFO retrial framework; double jeopardy considerations)
- Davis v. Commonwealth, 899 S.W.2d 487 (Ky.1995) (PFO proof sufficiency and retrial considerations)
- Hon v. Commonwealth, 670 S.W.2d 851 (Ky.1984) (PFO inference standards; caution on inferential proof)
- Martin v. Commonwealth, 13 S.W.3d 232 (Ky.1999) (reasonable inferences permitted for PFO; not mere guesswork)
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (U.S.1987) (new constitutional rules apply retroactively on direct review)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S.2009) (laboratory certificates as testimonial; confrontation required)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (S. Ct. 2011) (testimony by proxy and lab reports with testimonial status)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S.2004) (Confrontation Clause reliability test; confrontation required for testimonial statements)
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (U.S.1987) (retroactivity of new rules on direct review)