Robert Taylor v. Commonwealth
Kentucky Supreme Court
995 S.W.2d 355 (1999)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
In 1996, 17-year-old Robert Taylor (defendant), his girlfriend, Lucy Cotton, and Cotton’s infant son were driving in a 1985 Buick in Knox County. With them, they had a rifle, handgun, and two shotguns. As they were driving, the Buick stalled and Taylor sought assistance from a nearby resident, Herman McCreary. McCreary drove in his 1984 Ford pickup truck to assist the couple. McCreary attempted to jump-start the Buick, but his attempts failed. In response, Taylor decided to steal McCreary’s pickup truck. Taylor took the rifle from the Buick, pointed it at McCreary, ordered him to the ground, then struck him in the head with the stock of the rifle. McCreary lost consciousness. Once McCreary regained consciousness, Taylor told McCreary to get in the ditch beside the road or he would “blow his head off.” McCreary complied, and Taylor, Cotton, and Cotton’s child drove off in McCreary’s truck. McCreary contacted the police, and Taylor and Cotton were later apprehended. Taylor was tried by the Commonwealth of Kentucky (plaintiff) and convicted of assault in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, and possession of a handgun by a minor. Taylor was sentenced to three consecutive prison terms for each crime. Taylor appealed, arguing that his conviction of both robbery and assault violated the Fifth Amendment proscription against double jeopardy.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cooper, J.)
Dissent (Stumbo, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.