“Vacate-the-Lesser” Rule Reaffirmed: Supreme Court of Kentucky Clarifies Remedy for Mutually-Exclusive Verdicts in Taylor v. Commonwealth

Introduction

On 20 June 2025, the Supreme Court of Kentucky delivered an unpublished memorandum opinion in Leequan T. Taylor v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 2024-SC-0313-MR, affirming a 55-year sentence imposed by the Harrison Circuit Court. Although officially “not to be published,” the decision provides a meticulous discussion of two recurring criminal-procedure questions:

How courts should remedy mutually exclusive jury verdicts that violate the double-jeopardy protections of KRS 505.020(1)(b).
Whether a traffic stop and subsequent vehicle search complied with Fourth-Amendment standards.

By upholding the trial court’s choice to vacate only the lesser conviction (attempted manslaughter under Extreme Emotional Disturbance, “EED”) while leaving the greater conviction (first-degree assault) intact, the Court solidifies what this commentary calls the “vacate-the-lesser” remedial rule first articulated in Kiper v. Commonwealth, 399 S.W.3d 736 (Ky. 2012).

Summary of the Judgment

Disposition: Judgment and 55-year sentence affirmed.
Key Holdings:
1. Convictions for attempted first-degree manslaughter with EED and first-degree assault without EED are mutually exclusive; however, consistent with Kiper, only the lesser offense (attempted manslaughter, a Class C felony) must be vacated. The greater (assault, Class B felony) stands.
2. The traffic stop, observation of drug paraphernalia, and ensuing vehicle search were constitutional under the Fourth Amendment and Section 10 of the Kentucky Constitution: probable cause for the stop existed (suspended license, illegal tint), and the scale was in plain view.

Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Key Kentucky Authorities
• Kiper v. Commonwealth, 399 S.W.3d 736 (2012) – foundational “vacate-the-lesser” precedent.
• Lloyd v. Commonwealth, 324 S.W.3d 384 (2010) – double-jeopardy errors reviewed even if unpreserved.
• Burkhead, 680 S.W.3d 877 (2023) & Stephenson, 82 S.W.3d 876 (2002) – de novo standard for double-jeopardy questions.

Fourth-Amendment Authorities
• Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) – permissible tasks during traffic stops.
• Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) – plain-view doctrine.
• Byrd v. United States, 584 U.S. 395 (2018) – expectation of privacy in a vehicle.
• Brown v. Commonwealth, 890 S.W.2d 286 (Ky. 1994) – probable-cause searches of automobiles.

The Court’s reasoning rests heavily on Kiper. There, mutually exclusive findings (intent to kill vs. no intent) required the Court to keep the higher offense (attempted murder) and discard the lesser (assault). In Taylor, the roles flip: first-degree assault is more serious than attempted manslaughter (under EED). Applying Kiper in mirror-image fashion, the Court affirmed assault and vacated attempted manslaughter, rejecting the defence’s plea for a new trial.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Mutually Exclusive Verdicts. Under KRS 505.020(1)(b), a defendant cannot stand convicted of two offenses that require inconsistent findings of fact. Here:
- Attempted manslaughter (EED) – requires presence of EED.
- First-degree assault – jury explicitly declined to find EED.
The Court agreed that this contradiction triggers double-jeopardy concerns.
Choice of Remedy. Drawing on Kiper, the Court reaffirmed a bright-line solution: vacate the lesser conviction. A retrial is unnecessary because the jury has already found every element of the greater offense beyond a reasonable doubt; eliminating the lesser conviction cures the constitutional defect without wasting judicial resources.
Fourth-Amendment Analysis.
- Initial stop: Probable cause (suspended license + illegal tint).
- Request for registration: Routine mission-related task (Rodriguez).
- Plain-view discovery: Digital scale was visible as Taylor opened the door, satisfying Dickerson.
- Search of vehicle: Admission of narcotics use + presence of paraphernalia = probable cause; automobile exception (Brown).

3.3 Impact on Future Litigation

Solidification of “vacate-the-lesser”. Trial courts confronted with inconsistent verdicts now have a reaffirmed roadmap: determine felony classes, vacate the lesser, leave the greater intact, and proceed to sentencing. Appeals courts are unlikely to order retrials absent additional error.
EED as a Fact-finder Split. The case illustrates how EED findings can create verdict tension. Counsel must craft jury instructions carefully and anticipate the possibility of inconsistent EED determinations.
Traffic-stop jurisprudence. The opinion underscores that simple traffic infractions (e.g., illegal tint) coupled with database checks supply ample probable cause; once plainly visible contraband appears, searches will stand.
Persuasive, not binding. Although unpublished and non-precedential under RAP 40(D), Kentucky practitioners may cite it when no published authority addresses the exact same issue—especially in circuits wrestling with Kiper’s application.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Mutually Exclusive Verdicts: Two convictions are mutually exclusive when the fact findings needed for one necessarily negate essential facts of the other (e.g., acting with EED vs. acting without EED for the same act).
Extreme Emotional Disturbance (EED): A mitigating circumstance that can reduce murder to manslaughter or lessen the degree of assault. It requires a subjective loss of self-control and an objectively reasonable explanation.
Plain-View Doctrine: If officers are lawfully present and see contraband without further intrusion, observing and seizing it is not considered a separate “search” under the Fourth Amendment.
Automobile Exception: Because vehicles are mobile and heavily regulated, officers need no warrant to search when they have probable cause to believe the car holds evidence or contraband.
Vacate-the-Lesser Remedy: In Kentucky, when two convictions violate double-jeopardy because of mutually exclusive findings, courts should nullify (vacate) the conviction for the lesser-classed offense, preserving the greater.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Kentucky’s decision in Taylor v. Commonwealth refines procedural clarity on two fronts. First, it cements the pragmatic “vacate-the-lesser” response to mutually exclusive verdicts, steering trial courts away from automatic retrials and toward surgical correction. Second, it reinforces extant Fourth-Amendment doctrine—particularly the interaction of plain-view and the automobile exception—within everyday policing contexts. Although unpublished, the opinion will likely serve as a persuasive authority for litigants facing similar double-jeopardy or suppression issues, thereby quietly shaping Kentucky’s criminal-procedure landscape.