Williams v. Com., No. 86-CA-1270-MR

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
Writing for the CourtHOWARD
Citation734 S.W.2d 810
PartiesTommy Lee WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.
Decision Date12 June 1987
Docket NumberNo. 86-CA-1270-MR

Page 810

734 S.W.2d 810
Tommy Lee WILLIAMS, Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.
No. 86-CA-1270-MR
Court of Appeals of Kentucky.
June 12, 1987.
Case Ordered Published by
Court of Appeals July 10, 1987.
Rehearing Denied July 31, 1987.
Discretionary Review Denied
by Supreme Court Sept. 15, 1987.

Page 811

Frank W. Heft, Jr., Chief Appellate Defender of the Jefferson Dist. Public Defender, (Daniel T. Goyette, Jefferson Dist. Public Defender, of counsel), Louisville, for appellant.

David L. Armstrong, Atty. Gen., Daniel E. Cohen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.

Before HOWARD, LESTER and REYNOLDS, JJ.

HOWARD, Judge.

Tommy Lee Williams appeals from a judgment of Jefferson Circuit Court, entered pursuant to a jury verdict, convicting him of first-degree robbery and sentencing him to ten years in the penitentiary.

The issues on appeal are 1) whether a confession made by appellant was spontaneous and voluntary; and 2) whether the trial court complied with statutes and rules governing jury selection.

On August 15, 1985, police officers went to an address in Louisville to execute a warrant for appellant's arrest on a charge of armed robbery at a grocery store. Upon entering the house, they found one individual hiding under clothes on the floor. Noise emanated from a closet, and an officer drew his gun and ordered whoever was inside to come out. Appellant appeared. He was told to get down to the floor and twice was asked to identify himself. According to police, his response to the second inquiry was "Tommy Lee Williams, I robbed the store", although appellant himself testified he only gave the officer his name. Police told him he was under arrest. He was handcuffed and advised of his Miranda rights. Appellant allegedly made other incriminating statements afterwards.

Appellant now claims that the first incriminating statement he allegedly made while lying on the floor held at gunpoint lacked voluntariness and, if made, was the result of a threat of imminent bodily harm. He argues, therefore, that it should not have been admitted as evidence against him. Furthermore, he claims that the other statements made after Miranda warning should have been suppressed because they were tainted by the pre-Miranda violation.

It has long been held by the United States Supreme Court that a coerced confession, one obtained under physical intimidation or psychological pressure and overcoming someone's will, is inadmissible. Some applicable situations would include administering drugs before getting a confession, e.g., Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964); Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct.

Page 812

745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963), or physical brutality by police, e.g., Beecher v. Alabama, 389 U.S. 35, 88 S.Ct. 189, 19 L.Ed.2d 35 (1967); Tabor v. Commonwealth, Ky., 613 S.W.2d 133 (1981). In other words, the circumstances must be egregious.

Jefferson police handled appellant roughly. However, we are of the opinion that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • Hodge v. Com., No. 1996-SC-1085-MR.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • February 24, 2000
    ...to know in advance, or manipulate, the list of names who will eventually compose the ... jury." Williams v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 734 S.W.2d 810, 812-13 (1987). Appellant does not suggest that this irregularity occurred because of any premeditation or manipulation of the jury selectio......
  • Haight v. Com., No. 94-SC-288-MR
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • November 21, 1996
    ...no error of sufficient gravity to overcome the trial court's discretion with respect to a new trial. Williams v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 734 S.W.2d 810 In addition to the jury issues discussed hereinabove, appellant has raised questions concerning jurors Hansen, Ireland, Huffman, Nestmann an......
  • State v. Torgerson, No. 990340.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • May 25, 2000
    ...able to know in advance, or manipulate, the list of names who will eventually compose the empaneled jury." Williams v. Commonwealth, 734 S.W.2d 810, 812-13 (Ky.Ct. [A] party asserting a lack of randomness, in the absence of a substantial deviation from the statutory plan, must demonstr......
  • Thomas v. Haney, NO. 2010-CA-001026-MR
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • July 8, 2011
    ...verification procedure need not be comprehensive, the committee need only include some reference to verification." Gilhaus, 734 S.W.2d at 810 (citing Goble v. Wilson, 577 F.Supp. 219, 220 (W.D.Ky. 1983)). Thus, we find that the reliability and trustworthiness of the informant[s] are su......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • Hodge v. Com., No. 1996-SC-1085-MR.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • February 24, 2000
    ...to know in advance, or manipulate, the list of names who will eventually compose the ... jury." Williams v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 734 S.W.2d 810, 812-13 (1987). Appellant does not suggest that this irregularity occurred because of any premeditation or manipulation of the jury selectio......
  • Haight v. Com., No. 94-SC-288-MR
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • November 21, 1996
    ...no error of sufficient gravity to overcome the trial court's discretion with respect to a new trial. Williams v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 734 S.W.2d 810 In addition to the jury issues discussed hereinabove, appellant has raised questions concerning jurors Hansen, Ireland, Huffman, Nestmann an......
  • State v. Torgerson, No. 990340.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • May 25, 2000
    ...able to know in advance, or manipulate, the list of names who will eventually compose the empaneled jury." Williams v. Commonwealth, 734 S.W.2d 810, 812-13 (Ky.Ct. [A] party asserting a lack of randomness, in the absence of a substantial deviation from the statutory plan, must demonstr......
  • Thomas v. Haney, NO. 2010-CA-001026-MR
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • July 8, 2011
    ...verification procedure need not be comprehensive, the committee need only include some reference to verification." Gilhaus, 734 S.W.2d at 810 (citing Goble v. Wilson, 577 F.Supp. 219, 220 (W.D.Ky. 1983)). Thus, we find that the reliability and trustworthiness of the informant[s] are su......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT