Commonwealth v. Eckerle, 2014–SC–000027–MR
Decision Date | 24 September 2015 |
Docket Number | 2014–SC–000027–MR |
Parties | Commonwealth of Kentucky, Appellant v. Hon. Audra J. Eckerle, Judge, Jefferson Circuit Court, Appellee and William Bennett, Real Party In Interest |
Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Counsel for Appellant: Jack Conway, Attorney General for Kentucky, Dorislee J. Gilbert, Special Assistant Attorney General, Hon. Audra J. Eckerle, Judge, Jefferson Circuit Court.
Counsel for Real Party in Interest: G. Murray Turner, Turner Coombs & Malone, PLLC, Louisville.
This writ action arises from the criminal prosecution of Real Party in Interest William Bennett for first-degree assault and wanton endangerment. Bennett, contending he acted in self-defense and is immune from prosecution under Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 503.085, moved for dismissal of his indictment on immunity grounds and requested an evidentiary hearing. A review of the record reveals that Bennett was merely requesting a hearing so that the circuit court judge could view an enhanced videotape of the encounter that led to the criminal charges and not that he be allowed to call witnesses. A senior judge, presiding in Respondent's stead and acting pursuant to Rodgers v. Commonwealth, 285 S.W.3d 740 (Ky. 2009), reviewed evidence of record, including a videotape, and concluded that there was probable cause to believe that the force Bennett used was not legally justified. Hence, he denied the motion to dismiss. On reconsideration and without reviewing the videotape or other evidence of record, the Respondent set aside the senior judge's order and scheduled an evidentiary hearing on immunity, indicating her belief that Bennett was entitled to such a hearing and her interest in hearing from the witnesses. After asking Bennett's counsel if he would be issuing subpoenas and receiving an affirmative response, the Respondent scheduled a hearing at which witnesses, including the victims, are to appear and testify.
The Commonwealth promptly sought a writ, which the Court of Appeals denied, concluding that the Commonwealth had an adequate remedy by appeal. We find that the Respondent erred in not first considering the evidence of record (numerous witness statements from the victims, the defendant, and other witnesses as well as a videotape of the incident) to determine if there was probable cause to believe the force Bennett used was unlawful. In cases where the evidence of record is too limited for a circuit court to make that threshold determination, then a probable cause hearing may be appropriate but courts are not at liberty to bypass summarily the procedure outlined by this Court in Rodgers, a procedure designed to balance the important immunity shield with the equally important interest in having the elements of a criminal charge decided by a jury where probable cause is present. Under our writ jurisprudence, there is no adequate remedy by appeal where the trial court's erroneous action will result in a “substantial miscarriage of justice,” and “correction of the error is necessary and appropriate in the interest of orderly judicial administration.” Bender v. Eaton, 343 S.W.2d 799, 801 (Ky. 1961). As outlined below, that standard is met here and a writ is appropriate. Because a full understanding of this matter entails appreciating the relevant facts in the criminal prosecution, we begin with a statement of those facts.
On September 1, 2012, a group of people gathered at the home of Shelby Deutsch in celebration of his birthday. Bennett, who dated Deutsch's daughter Jericka Deutsch, was in attendance. Before the evening was over, an altercation ensued involving several people. Bennett fired a shot from his gun and the bullet struck Shelby Deutsch in the mouth, exiting his ear. A Louisville Metro Arson camera on a utility pole across the street recorded the incident. These basic facts are not in dispute.
Approximately two months later, Bennett was indicted for first-degree assault as to Shelby Deutsch and two counts of first-degree wanton endangerment as to Michael Turner and Tiffany Jecker, individuals present at the Deutsch home that night. In his motion to dismiss on immunity grounds and request for evidentiary hearing, Bennett contended that “police made the decision to charge the Defendant with little or no investigation and prior to viewing the video which clearly shows that Defendant acted in self protection.” After discussing this Court's Rodgers decision and the applicable probable cause standard, Bennett's motion concluded with the following: “A simple view of the video of the events in this case clearly shows that the Defendant was under attack and acted in self-protection and thus the force used herein [was] legally justified.” In response, the Commonwealth noted that it had filed discovery in the case, including the videotape as well as statements from victims and witnesses taken shortly after the shooting, and requested that the trial court determine the immunity issue on the evidence of record as directed in Rodgers.
The trial court initially scheduled an April 22, 2013 hearing. At that hearing, the Commonwealth and the defense were both prepared to play videos of the incident, with the Commonwealth apparently relying on the original unenhanced videotape and the defense having an enhanced videotape of higher quality. A review of the hearing reveals that both counsel intended to rely on their respective videos and arguments regarding the evidence of record. Without viewing either videotape, Respondent opined that an evidentiary hearing with live testimony was necessary in order for the Commonwealth to meet its burden of proof and scheduled a hearing for July 22.
The Commonwealth made a motion to reconsider, and at a May 31 hearing on that motion Senior Judge Steve Mershon, sitting in Respondent's stead, heard arguments of counsel. Three days later, after reviewing “all discovery, particularly including the videotape,” Judge Mershon issued a five-page order denying Bennett's motion to dismiss. His factual findings were as follows:
(emphasis in original). Following a discussion of Rodgers, the order concludes with the following analysis:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Delahanty v. Commonwealth, 2017-CA-000186-MR
... ... "[T]he repetition of this error has great potential to undermine the interest of orderly judicial administration." Commonwealth v. Eckerle , 470 S.W.3d 712, 727 (Ky. 2015). IV. Conclusion Throughout these proceedings Appellants urge us to look past the errors committed in the DSL ... ...
-
v. Calvert
... D.M.K. (A JUVENILE) APPELLANT v. HONORABLE GINA KAY CALVERT AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEES NO. 2015-CA-001452-MR Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals AUGUST 11, ... Maricle , 150 S.W.3d 1, 10 (Ky. 2004)); see also Commonwealth v ... Eckerle , 470 S.W.3d 712 (Ky. 2015). However, in the second class of writs, where a court is acting within ... ...
-
Morris v. Commonwealth
... ... Commonwealth v ... Eckerle , 470 S.W.3d 712, 724-25 (Ky. 2015). The Kentucky Supreme Court has had occasion to discuss KRS 530.120(2), but it has never declared that the ... ...
-
Abney v. Commonwealth
... ... See, e.g. 483 S.W.3d 369Commonwealth v. Eckerle, 470 S.W.3d 712, 723 (Ky. 2015) (self-defense claims) Rawls v. Commonwealth, 434 S.W.3d 48, 58 (Ky. 2014) (warrant based on confidential informant's ... ...