Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions on forty counts of possession or viewing of a matter depicting a sexual performance by a minor, seven counts of the use of a minor under sixteen in a sexual performance, and one count of sexual abuse of a minor under twelve, holding that the trial court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to use a great number of unindicted images as Ky. R. Evid. 404(b) evidence.At the end of an investigation, a law enforcement officer found 4,622 images and 1,005 videos of child sexual exploitation material on Defendant's home computer and 925 files of child sexual-exploitation material on Defendant's cell phone. The trial court subsequently convicted Defendant and sentenced him to a total of seventy years' imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argued that any discussion of images not presented to the grand jury and therefore not subject to indictment should not have been allowed by the trial court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant's trial was rendered unfair by the Commonwealth's introduction into evidence a number of inindicted images. View "Minch v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court granting Defendant's motion to suppress evidence, holding that substantial evidence supported the trial court's findings of fact and that the court's conclusions of law were legally sound.In granting Defendant's suppression motion, the trial court concluded that there was no reasonable suspicion that Defendant was involved in criminal activity prior to his stop. Because Defendant's consent to search was obtained after his illegal stop, the Supreme Court held that it was the fruit of that illegal stop. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that Defendant was illegally detained without reasonable suspicion. View "Commonwealth v. Perry" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the traffic stop in this case was extended, and the extension was not justified by reasonable, articulable suspicion.Defendant was charged with first-degree possession of cocaine. Defendant pled not guilty and filed a motion to suppress the evidence of cocaine, claiming that he was illegally detained and the the police did not have a reasonable, articulable suspicion to call for a K-9 unit to come and search the scene. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, concluding that the initial stop was valid. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that no reasonable articulable suspicion existed to permit the K-9 unit search and that the search unconstitutionally extended the traffic stop, in violation of Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. View "Commonwealth v. Clayborne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Defendant's motion for relief under Ky. R. Crim. P. 22.42 and 10.02 and Ky. R. Civ. P. 60.02 and 60.03, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that Defendant's claim was both substantively and procedurally improper.After a second trial in 1996, Defendant was convicted of two counts of complicity to murder, first-degree robbery and first-degree burglary. In 2018, the Supreme Court denied Defendant's collateral attacks and concluded that the United State's Supreme Court's decision in McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S.Ct. 1500 did not govern Defendant's claim that his trial attorney conceded guilt, against Defendant's express desire to maintain actual innocence. After Defendant filed the motion at issue on appeal, the circuit court denied the motion on the grounds that Defendant had already presented this claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err. View "Epperson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court denying a writ of prohibition seeking to prohibit enforcement of the district court's suppression order in this case, holding that the Commonwealth failed to show a great injustice and irreparable harm if its requested writ of prohibition was not granted.At issue was whether the district court erred in suppressing a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) result collected from Defendant, a Spanish-speaking person suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the BAC evidence, arguing that the arresting officer violated the implied consent statute. The Commonwealth subsequently petitioned for a writ of prohibition to prevent enforcement of the suppression order. The court of appeals granted the writ, determining that the statute did not require a suspect to understand the implied consent warning, but only that it must be read to the suspect. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Commonwealth did not meet the threshold requirements for the writ. View "Ortiz v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals vacating Defendant's conviction for robbery in the first-degree and complicity to murder and affirmed the trial court, holding that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's Ky. R. Crim. P. (RCr) 11.42 and Ky. R. Civ. P. (CR) 60.02 motions for a new trial.The evidence against Defendant included his codefendant's testimony that Defendant committed the crimes for which he was convicted, as well as expert testimony explaining historical cell site information placing Defendant in the area around the time of the crimes. Defendant's codefendant subsequently recanted his testimony, and Defendant sought a new trial under CR 60.02 and RCA 11.42. The trial court determined that Defendant was not entitled to a new trial under either rule. The court of appeals vacated Defendant's conviction based on the codefendant's recantation of his testimony. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the recanted testimony did not warrant a new trial. View "Commonwealth v. Crumes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for two counts of trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree and being a persistent felony offender in the second degree, holding that the trial court did not err in its assessment of court costs.On appeal, Defendant challenged the portion of the judgment ordering him to pay court costs within six months of being released from custody. Specifically, Defendant argued that the trial court exceeded its authority under Ky. Rev. Stat. 23A.205(3) and 534.020 because the statutes require all imposed court costs to be paid at the time of sentencing or within one year thereafter. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error requiring correction. View "Chadwell v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of first-degree assault, attempted murder, and other offenses and sentencing him to a total of thirty-five years' imprisonment, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant was not entitled to a directed verdict on the charge of first-degree burglary; (2) the trial court did not err in finding that a specific mistake of fact instruction would be duplicative of the trial court's proposed instruction; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's request for a self-protection instruction; (4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the jury to view the body camera video from the first officer to arrive on the scene; (5) the trial court did not err in permitting the jury to correct a mistake in form on Verdict Form 8; and (6) the trial court did not err in imposing a thirty-five-year sentence. View "Sutton v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to vacate the judgment convicting her for the murder of her husband, holding that the court of appeals correctly denied Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim but that, as to all other issues, the court of appeals' decision must be reversed.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the court of appeals did not err in denying Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim relating to her trial counsel's failure to object to certain erroneous jury instructions; and (2) the court of appeals' use of the manifest injustice standard of review was improper, and the case must be remanded to undertake a review of Defendant's remaining claims utilizing the proper standard of review. View "Ford v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court sentencing Defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole in connection with his conviction for murder, robbery in the first degree, and tampering with physical evidence, holding that there was no error in the sentence.Defendant entered an open guilty plea to the charges against him and then appealed his sentence. At issue was whether Defendant could subsequently appeal on the grounds that his statutorily-authorized sentence should be reversed because there was inadequate consideration given to mitigation evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant waived his right to appeal his sentence; and (2) even if the trial court's sentencing decision were subject to review, the trial court did not err when sentencing Defendant. View "Hayes v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law