Taylor v. Commonwealth
995 S.W.2d 355, 1999 Ky. LEXIS 73, 1999 WL 401652 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Blockburger test, multiple convictions for offenses arising from a single course of conduct do not violate double jeopardy if each statutory provision requires proof of an additional fact that the other does not.
Facts:
- Robert Taylor, age 17, and his girlfriend, Lucy Cotton, were traveling in a car that stalled in rural Knox County.
- The pair had several firearms in the vehicle, including a .22 rifle and a .38 handgun.
- A local resident, Herman McCreary, stopped and attempted to help them jump-start their car.
- After several failed attempts, Taylor armed himself with the .22 rifle.
- Taylor pointed the rifle at McCreary, ordered him to lie on the ground, and fired a shot into the ground near his head.
- Taylor then struck McCreary in the head with the stock of the rifle, causing him to temporarily lose consciousness and bleed from a head wound.
- Taylor threatened McCreary further before he and Cotton stole McCreary's truck and fled the scene.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Taylor was charged in the Knox Circuit Court (a state trial court) with assault in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, and possession of a handgun by a minor.
- Taylor was tried jointly with his co-defendant, Lucy Cotton.
- A jury found Taylor guilty on all charges.
- The trial court sentenced Taylor to a total of twenty years in prison.
- Taylor appealed his conviction directly to the Supreme Court of Kentucky as a matter of right.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does convicting a defendant of both first-degree robbery (by being armed with a deadly weapon) and second-degree assault (by intentionally causing physical injury with the same deadly weapon) arising from the same criminal transaction violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy?
Opinions:
Majority - Cooper, J.
No, convicting the defendant of both first-degree robbery and second-degree assault does not violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The court's reasoning applies the Blockburger test, which holds that two offenses are distinct if each requires proof of an element the other does not. Here, the robbery conviction, as charged under KRS 515.020(1)(b), required proof of a theft while armed with a deadly weapon; it did not require proof of actual physical injury. Conversely, the assault conviction under KRS 508.020(1)(b) required proof of intentionally causing physical injury with a deadly weapon; it did not require proof of a theft. Because robbery required proof of theft (an element assault did not) and assault required proof of physical injury (an element this specific charge of robbery did not), the two offenses are legally distinct, and convictions for both are permissible.
Dissenting - Stumbo, J.
Yes, the convictions violated the prohibition against double jeopardy. The dissent argues that while the indictment was proper, the jury instructions merged the two offenses, making one a lesser included offense of the other. The instruction for first-degree robbery required the jury to find that Taylor 'used or threatened the immediate use of physical force' while armed with the .22 rifle. The instruction for second-degree assault required the jury to find that Taylor inflicted injury by 'striking him with a .22 rifle.' This melding of charges allowed the jury to use the act of striking McCreary (the assault) to satisfy the 'use of force' element for the robbery. Therefore, as presented to the jury, the assault became an essential component of the robbery, and convicting Taylor of both constituted double jeopardy.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms Kentucky's adherence to a strict application of the Blockburger 'same-elements' test for double jeopardy claims. It emphasizes that the analysis hinges on the specific statutory elements of the offenses as charged and instructed to the jury, rather than on the broader factual narrative of the criminal episode. The case serves as a crucial precedent illustrating that a single violent act with a weapon can support separate convictions for both robbery and assault, provided the charges are framed under distinct statutory subsections (e.g., robbery by being armed vs. assault by causing injury). This reinforces the power of prosecutorial charging decisions and jury instructions in shaping the outcome of a double jeopardy analysis.
