Date: 06-14-2001

Case Style: Collins v. Hudson

Case Number: 1999-SC-0100-DG

Judge: Lambert

Court: Supreme Court of Kentucky

Plaintiff's Attorney: John Michael Brown, Steven L. Snyder, and Kenneth W. Brown of Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, Louisville, Kentucky for the City of Frankfort

C. Thomas Hectus of Hectus & Strause, P.L.L.C., Louisville, Kentucky

Defendant's Attorney: Thomas C. Lyons and Kevin L. Murphy of Murphy & Lyons, P.S.C., Covington, Kentucky

Description: This wrongful death case was brought by the administratrix of a police informant who was murdered by a person against whom he had informed after his identity had been disclosed by law enforcement officials. The issue before this Court is whether the officials had a statutory or common law duty to tell the informant that his identity had been revealed to defense counsel so that he could protect himself.

In September 1992, Franklin County Deputy Sheriff Joe Thornsberry and Frankfort Police Officer Dale Roberts received information about a series of thefts in the Franklin County area and undertook a joint investigation of the crimes. As part of the investigation, Thornsberry and Roberts interviewed Christopher Pettit, who was then seventeen years old. During the interview, Pet-tit provided detailed information implicating Paul Reed and his wife, Trina Reed, in the series of thefts. Pettit also admitted that he took part in some of the crimes with the Reeds. Roberts and Thornsberry promised Pettit that in exchange for his testimony against Paul Reed, no criminal charges would be brought against him. During the interview, Pet-tit also told the officers that he was afraid of Paul Reed, who had once threatened him with a gun and in a separate incident had shot at Pettit.

In December 1992, the Reeds and a third person, Donald Bryant, were indicted for crimes arising from the theft of a truck. On February 1, 1993, the attorney who represented all three defendants, Max Smith, filed a discovery request on their behalf. The request sought, interaiia, the names of informants, any agreements reached between authorities and informants, and witness statements. The trial court sustained the motion and ordered Commonwealth Attorney Morris Burton to provide the requested information. On June 8, 1993, Burton met with Deputy Sheriff Thornsberry and Officer Roberts to discuss turning over Pettit’s statement. During the meeting, concerns were voiced about the effect of this disclosure on Pettit’s safety. Burton instructed Thornsberry and Roberts to locate Pettit and bring him in so that Burton could prepare him to testify against the Reeds at trial. That same day, Burton filed the entire investigative file in the court record and delivered a copy of the documents to defense counsel Smith, who thereafter had the file delivered to the Reed residence.

According to deposition testimony from several witnesses, on June 8, 1993, Paul and Trina Reed conspired to murder Pettit for acting as an informant and to prevent him from testifying against them at the upcoming trial. On June 9, 1993, James Reed, a relative of Paul Reed, who was then acting as a confidential informant for Frankfort Police Department Detective Terry Harrod, called the Frankfort Police Department and told them that Paul Reed was planning to hurt Pettit. It is undisputed that no one from the Frankfort Police Department, the Franklin County Sheriffs Office, or the Franklin County Commonwealth Attorney’s Office notified Pettit that his identity as an informant had been revealed or that he might be in danger.

* * *

The defendants moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion, holding that the defendants owed no common law duty to Pettit under the “special relationship” test announced in Frvman v. Harrison.’ The trial court also held that Thornsberry could not be held liable because he had resigned from his position as Deputy Sheriff in March 1993, some three months before the disclosure of Pettit’s identity.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.

Outcome: The parties have presented various other claims and defenses in connection with this case, but by virtue of our resolution, it is necessary to address only those matters set forth herein. We have held that the statutory claim asserted by the administratrix of the decedent’s estate must be based upon the statute as it was enacted by the General Assembly, which includes that portion declaring that no liability shall result from violation of the statute. We have also held that under the facts presented here, prevailing common law principles in this jurisdiction do not afford a legal basis for a negligence claim against the law enforcement officials. Upon the foregoing, the opinion of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part and the final judgment of the Franklin Circuit Court is reinstated.

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: None