Farmer v. Com

20 Citing cases

  1. Wilson v. Commonwealth

    No. 2006-CA-000491-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Jul. 6, 2007)

    First, we must determine whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. If so, those findings are conclusive. RCr 9.78; Adcock v. Commonwealth, 967 S.W.2d 6, 8 (Ky. 1998). If not, the factual findings must be overturned as clearly erroneous. Farmer v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 50, 53 (Ky.App. 2005). Second, we must perform a de novo review of those factual findings to determine whether the lower court's decision is correct as a matter of law.

  2. Rawls v. Commonwealth

    434 S.W.3d 48 (Ky. 2014)   Cited 12 times

    Courts have previously held that where a trial court fails to comply with Criminal Rule 9.78, a defendant waives appellate review by declining to request more detailed findings. Id. at 714 (citing Farmer v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 50, 53 (Ky.App.2005)). Whether the affidavit was attached to the warrant is a factual question upon which Rawls's claim necessarily turns.

  3. Helphenstine v. Commonwealth

    423 S.W.3d 708 (Ky. 2014)   Cited 22 times
    In Helphenstine, the defendant filed motions to suppress and agreed that an evidentiary hearing was not necessary and that the legal arguments could be submitted on briefs.

    .RCr 13.04.See, e.g., Farmer v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 50, 53 (Ky.App.2005). B. The Denial of Helphenstine's Motion to Suppress the Products of the Search was not in Error.

  4. Petitioner v. Brown

    306 S.W.3d 80 (Ky. 2010)   Cited 16 times
    Recognizing that Kentucky courts read statutes in context with other parts of the law

    A. Fourth Amendment Appellants argue that DNA sampling violates their rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The collection and analysis of biological samples constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 617-18, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989); Farmer v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 50, 52 (Ky.App. 2005) (citing Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966)). Therefore, the question is whether the search is reasonable. Skinner, 489 U.S. at 619, 109 S.Ct. 1402.

  5. Com. v. Hatcher

    199 S.W.3d 124 (Ky. 2006)   Cited 27 times
    Holding that the trial court could not have found that a minor provided valid third-party consent because it did not determine whether the minor had common authority over the premises nor did it determine if the minor's action were voluntary

    Contrary to the majority's assertions, the Commonwealth was not required to prove the adolescent's exact age or receive testimony from the adolescent in order to establish the reasonableness of Officer Carr's actions. It is axiomatic that police officers are entitled to make reasonable presumptions based on facts which are reasonably available to the officer at the moment of their actions. See, e.g., Nourse, supra, at 696; Farmer v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 50, 52 (Ky.App. 2005); see also, United States v. Jenkins, 92 F.3d 430, 436 (6th Cir.1996)("consent is valid if `the facts available to the officer at the moment . . . warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the consenting party had authority over the premises'") (quoting Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 188, 110 S.Ct. 2793, 2801, 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990)). Officer Carr had every reason to believe that this adolescent was of a mature age and had full run of the house.

  6. Smith v. Commonwealth

    NO. 2019-CA-000223-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Aug. 14, 2020)

    Circumstances such as those in Smith's case are not uncommon and routinely result in separate counts of assault for each victim of the collision. See, e.g., Farmer v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 50, 52 (Ky. App. 2005) ("As a result of the motor vehicle collision, Farmer was indicted . . . on two counts of first-degree assault relative to the injuries sustained by Angela and Daniel Baker."). We find no palpable error here.

  7. French v. Commonwealth

    NO. 2015-CA-001424-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2017)

    "The Commonwealth has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence, through clear and positive testimony, that valid consent to search was obtained." Farmer v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 50, 52 (Ky.App. 2005) (emphasis added). Here, the sole evidence relied upon by the Commonwealth was Detective Mattingly's testimony.

  8. Jennings v. Commonwealth

    NO. 2012-CA-001621-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Jun. 27, 2014)

    Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251, 111 S.Ct. 1801, 1804, 114 L.Ed.2d 297, 302 (1991) (quoting Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 183-189, 110 S.Ct. 2793, 2798-2802, 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990)).Farmer v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 50, 52 (Ky. App. 2005).

  9. White v. Commonwealth

    NO. 2011-CA-000236-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2013)

    White thus waived the right to raise that issue on appeal. Farmer v. Com., 169 S.W.3d 50 (Ky. App. 2005). For the forgoing reasons, the January 18, 2011, Final Judgment and Sentence of Imprisonment of the Fayette Circuit Court is affirmed.

  10. Duncan v. Commonwealth

    NO. 2011-CA-000636-DG (Ky. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2013)

    In Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (U.S.Cal. 1966), the United States Supreme Court held that the taking of blood from a person is considered a search and is, consequently, subject to Fourth Amendment and state constitutional limitations. See Farmer v. Commonwealth, 169 S.W.3d 50 (Ky. App. 2005). The implied consent statute is constitutional and the search is allowed under the Fourth Amendment.