Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellants appealed the court of appeals' denial of a writ of mandamus or prohibition requiring media access to a juror contempt hearing where the suit arose from a hearing held by the circuit judge, appellee, to address a juror's alleged disobedience of that court's admonition to avoid publicity about the case. At issue was whether the court of appeals properly denied the writ for mootness and properly denied a writ of mandamus or prohibition on grounds of mootness. The court reversed the denial of the writ and held that the suit was moot but an exception to the mootness doctrine allowed appellants to pursue a writ when the suit was capable of repetition but evaded review. The court also held that appellants were entitled to a writ stating that criminal contempt hearings were to be afforded public access where the public's interest in a criminal contempt proceeding was essentially the same as its interest in any criminal trial. The court also noted that public access was not required, however, for the court's jury management functions, which were to be kept separate from contempt proceedings.

Appellant appealed his conviction of wanton murder when he killed his girlfriend's three-month old son. At issue was whether the trial court erred by rejecting appellant's request for an instruction on the offense of first-degree manslaughter under KRS 507.030 where appellant maintained that the proof at trial permitted a rational juror to believe not that he acted wantonly, but that he intended to injure the child and while doing so, unintentionally killed him. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the circuit court did not err by rejecting appellant's instruction where evidence of appellant's unrestrained attack upon the infant did not support a distinction between an intent to injure the child and a wanton disregard of the child's life.

Appellant appealed his conviction of intentional murder and sentence of thirty-two years' imprisonment after he shot the murder victim at point-blank range in the back of her head. Appellant raised four issues on review. The court held that the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal where, under the evidence presented, it was not clearly unreasonable for a jury to find appellant guilty and that the Commonwealth introduced more than a mere scintilla of evidence that the shooting was intentional. The court also held that the trial court did not violate appellant's right to a randomly selected jury when it dismissed a qualified juror for cause because appellant waived his jury selection argument under RCr 9.34. The court further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted testimony regarding appellant's harsh language and accusations of theft as it was offered as evidence of motive or absence of mistake or accident. The court finally held that the trial court did not err when it excluded certain testimony relating to appellant's demeanor following the shooting.

Appellant appealed convictions of complicity to manufacture methamphetamine, first-degree possession of methamphetamine, possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and first-degree persistent felony offender. At issue was whether the trial court erred by refusing to suppress all evidence discovered via a warrantless hotel room search and by failing to enter a directed verdict. The court affirmed the conviction and held that appellant did not have a reasonable privacy expectation in the hotel room where the search was conducted after the checkout time elapsed. The court also held that the trial court did not err by failing to enter a directed verdict because appellant was convicted of two previous felonies and the "concurrent sentence break" did not apply to appellant.

Appellant appealed from his convictions of first-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual abuse for which he received a total sentence of life imprisonment. Appellant raised numerous assignments of error, most of which were not preserved by trial counsel, for which appellant requested palpable error review under RCr 10.26. The court held that the admission of an egregious amount of inadmissible hearsay required appellant's convictions to be reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Appellant was convicted of multiple sex crimes against his daughter which occurred over the course of fifteen years. Appellant raised numerous issues on appeal. The court held that appellant's conviction on Count 6 was reversed where the Commonwealth conceded that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the rape described due to the absence of testimony that sexual intercourse had begun by that point. The court also held that all other convictions were affirmed and the case was remanded for modification and re-entry of judgment.

Appellant Prince Wilbert Woolfolk was convicted of first-degree rape. On the jury's recommendation, he was sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. In 1984, the victim was seventeen years old and an active member in her church's choir. On the date of the crime, the victim learned from her mother that Appellant, the pastor of the church, had called to say he would pick her up from school and take her to church, presumably for a choir activity. According to the victim, Appellant took her to his office and raped her. Twenty-three years later, the victim attempted suicide. Believing that the rape may have played a part in the attempt, the victim's mother contacted police about the 1984 incident. On investigation, Appellant admitted to police that a sexual encounter with the victim occurred. In 2008, Appellant was indicted for first-degree rape. During a lunch break at trial, Appellant's defense counsel conferred to discuss how to best cross-examine the victim about her claim; to counsel's surprise, and contrary to all prior statements Appellant had made on the subject, Appellant told his counsel he raped the victim. Counsel became concerned on his ethical duty to the court should Appellant take the stand and deny the rape. Counsel contacted the Kentucky Bar Association and requested an ex parte in camera conference with the court. Counsel moved the court to order a competence examination of Appellant, and to delay proceedings pending such an examination. The court denied both requests. On appeal, Appellant claims: that the trial court erred by discouraging Appellant from exercising his constitutional right to testify; that the trial court erred by failing to order a competency evaluation; and that there was a violation of his right to a speedy trial because of the twenty-four year lapse of time between the crime and the bringing of the indictment. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order a competency hearing; and though constitutional error occurred in the trial court's effort to discourage Appellant from testifying falsely, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed the lower court's conviction and sentence.