By: Logan Bartley
Late on the night of March 13, 2020, three police officers used a battering ram to break into the home of Breonna Taylor while executing a no-knock search warrant.[1] None of the officers identified themselves as law enforcement upon their entry into Ms. Taylor’s apartment that night, because it was not required by the no-knock search warrant they possessed.[2] Ms. Taylor, a young emergency room technician who aspired to become a nurse one day, was asleep in her bed with her boyfriend at the time.[3] Upon hearing the loud banging from the officers breaking into the apartment, the two rushed out of bed.[4] Ms. Taylor’s boyfriend discharged his legally possessed firearm in the direction of the invaders, which then prompted all three officers to open fire.[5] Ms. Taylor was hit by multiple rounds and later died from her gunshot wounds.[6]
On Wednesday, September 23, 2020, A Kentucky grand jury indicted only one of three officers responsible for the death of Breonna Taylor.[7] No charges were brought against the two officers that actually shot and killed Ms. Taylor, and the third was only charged with three counts of first-degree wanton endangerment.[8] These charges were not in any way related to the death of Ms. Taylor. Former officer Hankinson was only charged for endangering Ms. Taylor’s neighbors when he fired multiple rounds through a wall and into a neighboring apartment.[9]
The indictments, or lack thereof, come after months of protests seeking justice for Ms. Taylor. The F.B.I had previously determined that Detective Cosgrove was responsible for the fatal shot that ultimately caused Ms. Taylor’s death, yet the grand jury did not charge him with any form of homicide or manslaughter.[10] Nor did they decide to charge the other officer that shot Ms. Taylor.[11] Under Kentucky statute, a person is guilty of reckless homicide when, with recklessness, he causes the death of another person.[12]
[T]here are two theories under which a defendant may be convicted of reckless homicide: 1) The so-called “straight” reckless homicide theory, where the defendant acts without the specific intent to kill and in doing so, fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his actions could cause the victim’s death, and 2) The “imperfect self-defense” theory, where the defendant, with or without the specific intent to kill, acts under an actual but mistaken belief that he must use physical force or deadly physical force against another person in order to protect himself from imminent death or injury about to be inflicted by that person, and in so acting he failed to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that he was mistaken in his belief that force is necessary.[13]
If three officers breaking into an apartment after midnight, without announcing themselves, and subsequently opening fire on two individuals that had been asleep in that home is not reckless, then what constitutes recklessness? Even if the officers are claiming self-defense, under Kentucky case law they may still be guilty of reckless homicide.[14] So long as the officers acted under an actual but mistaken belief that they must use deadly physical force against Ms. Taylor in order to protect themselves, and in so acting they failed to recognize the substantial and unjustifiable risk that they were mistaken in their belief that force is necessary, then they may be convicted of reckless homicide.[15]
According to Kentucky case law, recklessness as used in the Kentucky Revised Statute § 507.050, “refers to the failure of the actor to perceive the risk incident to his conduct.”[16] Additionally, regardless of whether the officer intended to kill Ms. Taylor or not, “if he failed to perceive [the] substantial and unjustifiable risk that his conduct would result in the death of another, he is guilty of reckless homicide.”[17] Again, if the officers claim to not have understood the risks that their conduct created, they can still be, and should have been, found guilty of reckless homicide.
If the grand jury had found that the officers did in fact understand the risks associated with their actions that night, as they should have as trained officers of the law, then the indictment should have included charges for manslaughter or even murder. If the officers were “aware and consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that [their] conduct would result in the death of another person, [they are] guilty of second-degree manslaughter.”[18]
Either way, the grand jury failed to charge the officers for their actions and roles in the murder of Breonna Taylor. At the very least, the grand jury should have indicted on the charge of reckless homicide. Ms. Taylor and her family did not receive the justice they deserve, and her killers are allowed to walk free without any legal repercussions regarding her death. It is clear that justice will not be served until all individuals, law enforcement officers or not, are equal in all aspects of the law.
[1] Kevin Williams, Tim Craig, & Marisa Iati, Kentucky grand jury declines to file homicide charges in death of Breonna Taylor, the washington post (Sept. 23, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ kentucky-grand-jury-declines-to-file-homicide-charges-in-death-of-breonna-taylor/2020/09/23/ 2472392a-fdb7-11ea-b555-4d71a9254f4b_story.html
[2] Alisha H. Gupta & Christine Hauser, New Breonna Taylor Law Will Ban No-Knock Warrants in Louisville, Ky., The New York Times (June 12, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/us/ breonna-taylor-law-passed.html
[3] Kevin Williams, Tim Craig, & Marisa Iati, Kentucky grand jury declines to file homicide charges in death of Breonna Taylor, the washington post (Sept. 23, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ kentucky-grand-jury-declines-to-file-homicide-charges-in-death-of-breonna-taylor/2020/09/23/ 2472392a-fdb7-11ea-b555-4d71a9254f4b_story.html
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 507.050 (West).
[13] Com. v. Hasch, 421 S.W.3d 349, 355-56 (Ky. 2013).
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Baker v. Com., 677 S.W.2d 876, 879 (Ky. 1984).
[17] Elliott v. Com., 976 S.W.2d 416, 419 (Ky. 1998).
[18] Id.
