Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals reversing the circuit court's order on revocation of probation which ran Defendant's sentence in her Kenton County case sentence consecutive to, rather than concurrent with, her sentence in her Campbell County cases, holding that this case was moot.In 2016, Defendant pled guilty to Kenton Circuit Court to criminal possession of a forged instrument. While still on probation, Defendant committed two additional felonies in Campbell County. The Kenton Circuit Court ultimately revoked Defendant's probation and ordered her incarcerated for three years. The court of appeals reversed, ordering on remand that Defendant's sentences be ordered to run concurrently. The Supreme Court vacated the decision below, holding that the case was moot because Defendant has completed all of her obligations to both Kenton and Campbell Counties. View "Commonwealth v. Collinsworth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the circuit court's order that Defendant forfeit $3,759 in cash that law enforcement officials seized the day Defendant and her co-defendant were arrested, holding that the trial court's forfeiture order was not erroneous.In reversing the forfeiture order, the court of appeals concluded that the Commonwealth failed to establish slight traceability of the funds to drug-trafficking activities. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court did not clearly err in determining that sufficient facts existed to establish slight traceability of the money to drug activity and raising the presumption of forfeiture, and did abuse its discretion in determining that Defendant failed to rebut the statutory presumption of forfeiture. View "Commonwealth v. Doebler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of sodomy in the first degree and rape in the first degree and his sentence of seventeen years' imprisonment, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant sought clarification of the application of the exceptions to Ky. R. Evid. 412's general prohibition of evidence of a sexual nature pertaining to the victim of alleged sexual misconduct under the circumstances of this case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the residual exception of Rule 412(b)(1)(C) is reserved for exceptional and unanticipated circumstances, and because this case presented neither exclusion was appropriate; and (2) the trial court's exclusion of the proffered evidence did not deprive Defendant of his right to present a meaningful defense or constitute a violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. View "Powers v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

In this appeal addressing the ramifications of Defendant's refusal to take a blood test when he was stopped for driving under the influence (DUI) the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing and remanding this case to the circuit court, holding (1) the trial court properly held that, under Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016), Defendant's refusal to submit to a blood test could not be used to enhance his criminal penalty for DUI and that, under controlling precedent, could not be used as evidence that Defendant was guilty of DUI; but (2) the trial court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to introduce evidence to explain to the jury the lack of scientific evidence as to Defendant's blood alcohol content. View "Commonwealth v. McCarthy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment convicting Defendant of complicity to murder and tampering with physical evidence, holding the trial court did not err in admitting unreacted out-of-court statements in which Defendant's co-defendant incriminated herself and Defendant to a cellmate who testified at trial.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err in ruling that the Confrontation Clause was not implicated because the co-defendant's out-of-court statements to her cellmate were not testimonial and sufficient corroboration otherwise supported the admissibility of the statements; (2) the trial court did not err in admitting a jail phone call of Defendant; and (3) the Commonwealth's Attorney improperly questioned a witness, but the error did not render Defendant's trial fundamentally unfair. View "Fisher v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of one count of theft of mail matter and of being a persistent felony offender in the first degree and sentencing him to twenty years' imprisonment, holding that the circuit court did not err.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for directed verdict; (2) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's request for a lesser jury instruction on theft by unlawful taking under $500; (3) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's Batson challenge to the commonwealth's strike of Juror $4070; (4) any error in the admission of victim impact testimony during the guilt phase of Defendant's trial did not amount to reversible error; and (5) a clerical error in Defendant's judgment did not rise to the level of palpable error. View "Davis v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of murder and sentencing her to life imprisonment, holding that Defendant was not entitled to reversal of her convictions.Defendant was convicted of the murder of her boyfriend. Defendant later moved for a new trial after discovering that a convicted felon had served on the jury. The motion was granted and, after a retrial, Defendant was again convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the only potential error identified on appeal was testimony that arguably crossed over into the realm of victim impact testimony, but to the extent that this was error, it was harmless. View "Hubers v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of two counts of first-degree sexual abuse and two counts of first-degree sodomy and sentencing him to life imprisonment, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the jury instructions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Kentucky or the United States Constitutions; (2) the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of two counts of first-degree sodomy; and (3) Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the Commonwealth's attorney vouching during closing argument for the victim's truthfulness. View "Towe v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of trafficking in a controlled substance (heroin) in the first degree and of being a persistent felony offender in the first degree and sentencing him to twenty years in prison, holding that the circuit court did not err in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court (1) did not err by denying Defendant's pretrial motion to either suppress the evidence from an undercover drug buy or to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction; and (2) properly admitted into evidence better-quality copies of Snapchat messages than the ones provided to Defendant in discovery. View "Pope v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals rejecting the trial court's conclusion that Defendant was not required to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) but nevertheless affirming the judgment, holding that Defendant qualified for lifetime SORA registration for his crimes.Defendant pleaded guilty to three felony counts of distributing child pornography. At sentencing, the trial court found, in contrary to the Commonwealth's argument, that Defendant was not required to become a SORA registrant because his crimes were not sex crimes. The court of appeals affirmed, holding (1) SORA requires those who have committed crimes against minors, such as Defendant, to register; but (2) Defendant's three felony convictions exempted him from SORA because his convictions were each charged as first-offense crimes against a minor and all three convictions arose from a single course of conduct. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant must register under SORA for his lifetime because he was convicted of multiple offenses defined as a crime against a minor. View "Commonwealth v. Daughtery" on Justia Law