No. 23-7115

Timothy D. Hinkle v. Kentucky

Lower Court: Kentucky
Docketed: 2024-04-01
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-procedure due-process hearsay hearsay-rule jury-instructions prosecutorial-misconduct sexual-assault witness-credibility
Key Terms:
DueProcess FourthAmendment Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2024-05-16
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the courts allow the petitioner to have a fair and impartial trial?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : Petitioner was found guilty of rape first-degree, tampering with a witness and assault fourth-degree during trial. The facts of the case, however, logically Timothy-Hinkle and Lizeth Perez was in a romantic relationship for 6 months and during their relationship there was sexual contact that was consented by both parties. However there was a physical altercation between the two. Undisputed facts are initially Lizeth Perez wanted to press assault-fourth charges on Timothy Hinkle so he would get incarcerated, however she was unsuccessful when a police officer explained to her that she would have to file and epo/dvo complaint. Lizeth then added | to the initial story and said Mr. Timothy Hinkle had sexual assaulted her. She had eventually changed her mind and dropped the sexual assault charges but proceeded with the assault. fourth degree and tampering charges. Lizeth eventually moved away to Mexico, for some months and moved back to Louisville Kentucky. When she moved back, she had gotten incarcerated for a felony burglary and some other charges. : ; Lizeth Perez was incarcerated for the following charges when suddenly she wanted to pursue | with pressing a rape charge on Timothy Hinkle. The undisputed facts are that Timothy Hinkle was found guilty based off of hearsay allegations. | The other facts are that the timing of Lizeth being incarcerated for her own charges and the improper order of her story during trial, Timothy was not allowed to question Lizeth's motives. Also sexual abuse wasn’t presented to the jury instruction as a lesser charge from Rape first-degree. . . Petitioner presents the following related questions: 1. DID THE COURTS ALLOW HIM TO HAVE A FAIR AND , AN IMPARTIAL TRIAL? , , 2. WHEN MUST THE COURTS SHOULD FOLLOW THE j GUIDE LINES OF THE HEARSAY RULE? : i} 3. WHY ARE THE COURTS ALLOWING KNOWINGLY MISLEADING STATEMENTS TO BE PRESENTED TO THE JURY? 4. WHY WASN'T THE JURY INSTRUCTED A LESSER CHARGE THEN RAPE FIRSTDEGREE?

Docket Entries

2024-05-20
Petition DENIED.
2024-05-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/16/2024.
2024-04-24
Waiver of right of respondent Kentucky to respond filed.
2023-12-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 1, 2024)

Attorneys

Kentucky
James HaveyOffice of the Kentucky Attorney General, Respondent
James HaveyOffice of the Kentucky Attorney General, Respondent
Timothy D. Hinkle
Timothy D. Hinkle — Petitioner
Timothy D. Hinkle — Petitioner