Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D testified that when he woke on the morning of January 27, 2007, he started the day with a 'line' of cocaine in his bedroom at his parents' home. D then '[ate] five two-milligram bars of Xanax.' Sometime after noon, he drove his girlfriend to work. He came back to his parents' home, drank a fifth of straight whiskey with crushed Lortabs in it, snorted cocaine, and '[took] more Xanax bars.' D also smoked two marijuana joints outside of the home. D thereafter went to Roy's apartment, where he smoked more marijuana. The marijuana 'hit [him] a little harder than normal' making him 'start seeing stuff' such as flashes of color. His blood pressure ran up and down while his heart raced. This experience lasted for about two hours. He believed the marijuana had crack cocaine in it because this reaction was very similar to other reactions he had when he smoked marijuana laced with crack cocaine. D was still high on the crack cocaine laced marijuana, D and Roy went to D's parents' farm. While there, D shot Roy in the back of the head with a .22 caliber handgun; D stole the handgun from his parents' locked gun cabinet. Roy died as a result of the gunshot to his head. After killing Roy, D buried Roy's body in a shallow grave that he had dug on the Kerr’s property. On the afternoon of Sunday, February 4, 2007, D told his parents that he had killed Roy. Kerrs learned that same evening that Roy's body was buried on their property. The following day, February 5, 2007, D's attorney met with the Police and the Hardin County Commonwealth Attorney to discuss a plea deal. Mrs. Brown (P) was contacted by KSP officers and told that they had a person of interest who had information on what happened to Roy. The officers told P that if she agreed to a plea of manslaughter because the shooting was accidental, the person of interest would cooperate with police and show them where Roy's body was. P did not believe it was fair that this information could be used as a 'bargaining chip' but did not believe she had any other choice. So long as the person of interest would receive the maximum sentence to the manslaughter charge, she was agreeable the deal. P filed a complaint in the circuit court against D and his parents. She alleged that the Kerrs owed her a duty not to interfere with her right to possess Roy's dead body and to not mishandle his dead body. P asserted that the Kerrs owed Roy a duty of care because the harm he suffered was foreseeable based on D's past with drugs and violence. She further contended that the Kerrs owed Roy a duty of care as a licensee on their property. The Kerrs filed a motion for summary judgment, and the circuit court granted their motion. P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co