Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of intentional murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred when it (1) denied her motion to suppress statements she gave to police after a polygraph examination because she did not knowingly and voluntarily waive her Miranda rights, and (2) failed to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of first-degree manslaughter. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's conviction and sentence, holding (1) the trial court did not err in admitting Appellant's statements given to the police because, under the totality of the circumstances, nothing showed that Appellant did not knowingly and voluntarily waive her rights as to her post-polygraph interview with police; and (2) Appellant's argument that the trial court failed to give an instruction on first-degree manslaughter was not properly preserved and not subject to palpable-error review.View "Wise v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellee entered guilty pleas to three charges of theft by unlawful taking over $300. The final judgment provided that Appellee be placed on supervised probation for five years and pay restitution. After the expiration of Appellee's probationary period, the Commonwealth moved to revoke Appellee's probation based upon his failure to pay restitution. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that, pursuant to Conrad v. Evridge, the circuit court was without jurisdiction to revoke Appellee's probation. In so holding, the circuit court rejected the Commonwealth's argument that Ky. Rev. Stat. 533.020(4) operated to automatically extend Appellee's probationary period so long as he failed to complete payment of the restitution as ordered. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 533.020(4) authorizes a trial court to extend the duration of a sentence of probation only if such an extension is necessary for payment of restitution; and (2) upon expiration of Appellee's probationary period, the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case and was without authority to revoke Appellee's probation.View "Commonwealth v. Wright" on Justia Law

Defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained from a search of her vehicle during an investigatory stop. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to several drug-related charges and subsequently appealed. The court of appeals reversed, concluding (1) Defendant was detained for an unreasonably prolonged amount of time; and (2) the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the duration of the stop beyond the time needed to complete a citation for a traffic violation. The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals and affirmed the circuit court's order denying Defendant's motion to suppress, holding (1) Defendant was detained beyond the time necessary to effectuate the purpose of the traffic stop; but (2) the prolonging of Defendant's detention was justified by at least a reasonable and articulable suspicion that she was engaged in criminal activity.View "Commonwealth v. Bucalo" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of first-degree assault and of being a second-degree persistent felony offender. The Supreme Court affirmed one of Appellant's convictions for first-degree assault, reversed the other conviction, and remanded, holding (1) the trial court did not commit reversible error by failing to strike three prospective jurors for cause, failing to provide limiting instructions, or allowing a fact witness to present an expert opinion; (2) the Commonwealth's question to Appellant was to whether it was lawful for him to possess a firearm was not reversible error; but (3) the Commonwealth's proof did not support a conviction for one of the first-degree assault convictions.View "McDaniel v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of the use of a weapon of mass destruction in the second degree for and attempted murder for installing a pipe bomb in a car. Appellant was sentenced to forty years in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s conviction did not violate double jeopardy principles; (2) the trial court did not err in finding that serious physical injury occurred to the victim and in sentencing Appellant as a violent offender; (3) the trial court’s refusal to allow the jurors to use their notes during deliberations was not reversible error; and (4) Appellant was not wrongly denied his motion for directed verdict. View "Biederman v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellee was found guilty of second-degree arson, second-degree burglary, and of being a first-degree persistent felony offender. The trial court erred in its peremptory strike allocation during voir dire, but Appellee’s counsel failed to preserve the issue for appeal. Appellee subsequently filed a motion pursuant to RCr 11.42 to vacate his sentence due to ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that he would have used the two additional peremptory strikes denied to him by the trial court in striking two jurors. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Appellee’s allegations were not credible. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in relying on Shane v. Commonwealth in reversing the decision of the trial court; and (2) Appellee failed to demonstrate how he was prejudiced by not being able to strike the two jurors. View "Commonwealth v. Lawson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine while in possession of a firearm, of being a convicted felon in possession of a hand gun, and possession of marijuana. The trial court sentenced Appellant as a persistent felony offender to thirty-four years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err by not instructing the jury on unlawful possession of a methamphetamine precursor as a lesser-included offense of manufacturing methamphetamine; and (2) did not err in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, Appellant’s motion to suppress items seized from his home, as the search was done pursuant to a valid search warrant. View "Rawls v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant filed to sequential motions to suppress evidence, contending that the warrantless search of his mobile home was illegal and that the Commonwealth did not establish the proper chain of custody for the evidence seized from his home. Both motions were denied, and Defendant was found guilty as charged. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the warrantless search of Defendant's mobile home satisfied neither the textual directives of the Fourth Amendment and Section 10 of the Kentucky Constitution nor the judicially-created exception under Maryland v. Buie.View "Brumley v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a prison disciplinary hearing, Appellant, a prisoner, was found guilty of committing physical action against another inmate resulting in death or serious physical injury. Appellant subsequently filed a declaration of rights action in circuit court appealing the finding of guilt, contending that his due process rights were violated because the prison’s disciplinary hearing officer refused to allow him to call the victim of the assault and declined to view surveillance camera footage of the incident. The circuit court denied the petition. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) if a prison challenges the denial of a prisoner’s request for a particular witness in a disciplinary proceeding by appealing the discipline imposed, the adjustment officer (AO) must provide for the record on review the AO’s reason for denying the witness; (2) if requested by the prisoner in a disciplinary proceeding an AO must review surveillance footage or similar documentary evidence; and (3) Appellant was found guilty and subject to prison discipline as a result of a process that failed to comport with the minimum requirements of due process. Remanded. View "Ramirez v. Nietzel" on Justia Law

Appellee was an inmate when he was allegedly involved in a riot. During an interview with an investigating officer, Appellee requested that three witnesses be questioned who could corroborate his version of events, but the witnesses were not interviewed. After a disciplinary hearing, at which Appellee did not call witnesses or present evidence in his defense, Appellee was disciplined for his participation in the riot. Appellee subsequently filed a petition for declaration of rights in the circuit court, arguing that Appellants violated his due process rights by failing to interview the three purported witnesses and by denying him the right to call witnesses and present evidence in his defense. The trial court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the hearing complied with the minimal requirements of procedural due process as outlined in Wolff v. McDonnell. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the interviewing officer’s failure to interview the requested witnesses did not deprive Appellant of procedural due process as outlined in Wolff; but (2) while Appellee did not have had the right to remain silent or the right to an attorney during his disciplinary hearing, he deserved a new disciplinary hearing because he was erroneously informed that he enjoyed the rights espoused in Miranda. View "White v. Boards-Bey" on Justia Law