Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After the fiscal court voted to discontinue maintenance on a county road, Appellant, who owned property and lived on the road, erected a locked gate blocking the road and provided a key to each property owner on the road. Appellees, a non-profit association known as Preserve Rural Roads of Madison County, filed suit against Appellant to force him to remove the gates. The circuit court granted Appellees' motion for summary judgment, finding that Appellees had standing and that Appellant was without legal right or ownership to prohibit others from using the road. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Rural Roads had associational standing in this matter; (2) the discontinuance of maintenance on the county road did not affect any public easement rights; and (3) the lower courts' decisions in this case, holding that the county road is a public road and that Appellant could not block the road with gates, did not constitute an unlawful taking of Appellant's land. View "Bailey v. Preserve Rural Rds. of Madison County, Inc." on Justia Law

Kenneth Williams pled guilty to possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, carrying a concealed deadly weapon, and loitering. Before trial, Williams moved to suppress the handgun seized from him, asserting that it was the product of an unconstitutional stop and patdown of his person. When police detained Williams, he was among a group of nine people, some of whom the police observed openly engaging in illegal drug activity and some of whom police found in possession of handguns. Williams argued that the group's activities did not create reasonable suspicion of criminal activity particularized to him to justify a Terry detention. The trial court denied Williams' motion to suppress, finding that Williams was part of a distinct group whose conduct aroused sufficient reasonable suspicion for the officers to detain Williams. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling on Williams's suppression motion, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the trial court's factual findings; and (2) the Terry stop was constitutional because police had reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity among the group that justified an investigatory stop of its members. View "Williams v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant Lawrence Stinnett was convicted of murder and kidnapping and sentenced to life in prison without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) properly failed to dismiss the kidnapping charge pursuant to the kidnapping exemption statute even though the court's analysis in refusing to apply the exemption was flawed; (2) properly instructed the jury on the crime of intentional murder; (3) properly denied Appellant's request to remove his attorneys and allowed him to represent himself; (4) properly denied Appellant's request to compel the attendance at trial of an out-of-state witness, a psychologist who had previously examined Appellant; and (5) did not abuse its discretion by permitting the Commonwealth to use a letter written by Appellant's prior attorney because the letter did not violate the attorney-client privilege, and the hearsay testimony elicited from counsel was harmless error. View "Stinnett v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant Brian Moore was convicted of the robbery, kidnapping, and murder of Virgil Harris and sentenced to death. After the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, Appellant unsuccessfully sought to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence at both the state and federal levels. Appellant then pursued post-conviction DNA testing under Ky. Rev. Stat. 422.285 in the circuit court. Appellant came before the Supreme Court seeking additional DNA testing beyond that ordered below or, in the alternative, to vacate his conviction and sentence for several reasons, including the post-trial loss of evidence that was to be tested for DNA. The Commonwealth cross-appealed as to several issues. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the orders of the circuit court, holding (1) the Commonwealth's cross-appeal was without merit; and (2) although Appellant did not demonstrate that his conviction and sentence should be vacated, the circuit court erred in reading its power to order independent DNA testing to be limited by statute. Remanded. View "Moore v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Shannon Straub was arrested by a police officer, who took her to a hospital emergency department for examination. After Straub became combative, hospital personnel physically restrained Straub, gowned her, applied restraints, drew blood, and extracted a urine sample. After suing unsuccessfully in federal court, Straub brought an action in the state trial court against Defendants, the emergency room doctor, the hospital, its employees, the police officer, and the city. In her complaint, Straub alleged that Defendants violated her rights under the Kentucky Constitution and asserted various common law tort claims. The trial court dismissed before trial Straub's claims that the hospital defendants deprived Straub of her due process interests under the Kentucky Constitution. After a trial, a jury returned a verdict for all Defendants. The court of appeals reversed. At issue on appeal was whether an individual can bring a civil action for money damages under Ky. Rev. Stat. 446.070 on the basis of an alleged violation of a provision of the Kentucky Constitution. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the trial court's judgment, holding that section 446.070 does not provide money damages for alleged violations of the state Constitution. View "St. Luke Hosp. v. Straub" on Justia Law

Appellant Sean Noakes was convicted of murder, attempted murder, and being a first-degree persistent felony offender. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Appellant was not entitled to a complete acquittal on the murder charge, the trial court did not err by denying his motion for a directed verdict on the murder charge; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by including the language of Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. 504.020(2) in its insanity instruction; (3) because Appellant tendered the first-degree manslaughter instruction based on extreme emotional disturbance, Appellant was barred from arguing it as a basis on this appeal to reverse his conviction; and (4) the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct throughout the trial. View "Noakes v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant Jeremy Lawton was convicted of escape in the second degree and of being a persistent felony offender in the second degree. The court of appeals affirmed. At issue on appeal was (1) whether Appellant was entitled to a directed verdict on the charge of second-degree escape, (2) whether the instruction for second-degree escape was flawed and constituted palpable error, and (3) whether the evidence presented supported an instruction for third-degree escape. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the court of appeals on the issues of the motion for directed verdict and the instruction for third-degree escape, but (2) reversed Appellant's conviction for second-degree escape because an essential element was missing from the jury instruction for second-degree escape such that it actually established a different, uncharged crime, and therefore, the instruction constituted palpable error. Remanded for a new trial. View "Lawton v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Christopher Chavies of manufacturing methamphetamine, receipt of stolen property, and being a second-degree persistent felony offender. Chavies was sentenced to fifty years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court upheld Chavies's convictions and sentence, holding (1) the trial court properly denied Chavies's motions to suppress evidence seized during a search of his vehicle; (2) the trial court did not err by denying a directed verdict for the offense of manufacturing methamphetamine; and (3) the trial court erred by allowing the introduction of Chavies's amended and dismissed charges in the penalty phase of the trial, but the erroneous introduction of the charges did not seriously affect the fairness of the proceeding and therefore did not rise to the level of palpable error. View "Chavies v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant Peter Bard was charged with murder but was determined to be incompetent to stand trial. Appellant was involuntarily institutionalized for treatment for a total of 1,449 days while he was charged. After he had regained competency, Appellant was found guilty but mentally ill of first-degree manslaughter. The circuit court imposed a twenty-year sentence after addressing Appellant's presentencing custody credit, which was calculated at 3,086 days. Six years later, Appellant was released from custody but reincarcerated after the Department of Corrections (Department) discovered the alleged error in the calculation of Appellant's custody credit and concluded that Appellant should not have been discharged. The circuit court judge then approved and signed an amended time credit sheet prepared by the Department that reduced Appellant's presentencing custody credit to 1,449 days. Appellant filed a motion requesting that the trial court deem the judgment against him satisfied. The court denied the motion, finding that the Department had the authority to modify Appellant's presentencing custody credit. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Department lacked the authority to modify the amount of presentencing custody credit awarded to Appellant in the trial court's sentence because the alleged error in this case was judicial. View "Bard v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Thomas York was found guilty of burglary in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, and being a persistent felony offender in the second degree. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) York's Fifth amendment right to remain silent was not violated where he was required to recite a neutral phrase before the jury so the victim could make an in-court identification of York's voice; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying York's motions for a mistrial where (i) certain testimony during the trial did not taint the jury or unduly prejudice York, and (ii) any prejudice resulting from misstatements made during the penalty phase were cured from the judge's admonitions. View "York v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law