Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant on nine counts of first-degree sexual abuse for actions perpetrated against K.V., a minor at the time of the abuse, and sentencing him to twenty years in prison, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the prosecutor's closing argument was improper, but it did not constitute flagrant prosecutorial misconduct; (2) the trial court did not err in allowing K.V. to read the printed screenshots of her diary entries from her iPad; (3) the trial court did not commit palpable error in allowing the Commonwealth to question Defendant about K.V.'s credibility; (4) the jury instructions did not violate Defendant's right to a unanimous verdict; and (5) there was no cumulative error. View "Barrett v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of two counts of rape in the first degree and sentencing him to twenty years' imprisonment, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of rape in the first degree and sentenced to twenty years in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not misapply Marsy's Law; (2) the trial court did not err by allowing the Commonwealth to refer to A.C. as the "victim" during trial or by admitting certain testimony; (3) the Commonwealth's attorney did not improperly insert himself as a witness; and (4) there was no cumulative error. View "Robertson v. Kentucky" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's conviction of one count of possession of synthetic drugs, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence recovered from his backpack.In his motion to suppress, Defendant argued that the warrantless search of his backpack violated the Fourth Amendment of the federal constitution and section ten of the state constitution. The circuit court denied the motion, finding that the search of Defendant's backpack was lawful as a search incident to his lawful arrest. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the underlying search was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court properly concluded that the search was a lawful search incident to Defendant's arrest. View "Commonwealth v. Bembury" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of twelve counts of possession of matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor and other sex-related offenses and his total sentence of seventy years in prison, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err by denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the seizure of his cellphone and password because Defendant voluntary consented to the search; and (2) the trial court did not erroneously instruct the jury as to the effect of Ky. Rev. Stat. 532.110(1)(d) on the jury's discretion to recommend consecutive and concurrent sentences. View "Payne v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of two counts of first-degree rape and two counts of first-degree sexual abuse and his sentence of thirty years' imprisonment, holding that the trial court erred in permitting the Commonwealth to present victim impact testimony during the guilt phase of Defendant's trial, and the error affected Defendant's substantial rights.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the admission of testimony about how the alleged sexual assaults affected the victims in the merits phase constituted impermissible victim impact testimony, and this error impacted Defendant's substantial rights, requiring remand for a new trial. View "Alderson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant, following a jury trial, of complicity to attempted murder, complicity to second-degree assault, and tampering with physical evidence and his sentence of twenty years' imprisonment, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant was not entitled to a directed verdict on the complicity to attempted murder charge, the complicity to second-degree assault charge, or the tampering with physical evidence charge; (2) the trial court properly denied a mistrial; (3) Defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on menacing; and (4) the trial court properly excluded irrelevant evidence during the penalty phase. View "Stieritz v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of theft by unlawful tasking, burglary in the third degree, and being a persistent felony offender in the first degree, and imposing a total sentence of twenty years in prison, holding that the trial court erred in part.The Supreme Court vacated the conviction as a persistent felony offender and remanded this action, holding (1) the instructions given in this case were erroneous because it could not be determined whether the jurors were unanimous in concluding that Defendant committed a single act satisfying the instruction, but the error was not palpable; (2) there was palpable error in Defendant's conviction as a persistent felony offender; and (3) Defendant's motion for directed verdict was properly denied. View "Johnson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the opinion of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction for possession of heroin, holding that the court of appeals erred by affirming the trial court's admission of certain evidence and by affirming the trial court's decision allowing a certain witness to testify.Here, the Supreme Court adopted the reasonable test for determining whether the warrantless search of a parolee's vehicle is constitutionally permissible under the Fourth Amendment, as announced in Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006), and overruled its decision in Bratcher v. Commonwealth, 424 S.W.3d 411 (Ky. 2014) to the extent it held that the conditions of parole imposed by state law are immaterial to the Fourth Amendment analysis. The Court also held that the court of appeals (1) did not err in affirming the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search of his truck; (2) erred by affirming the trial court's admission of evidence of methamphetamine for which Defendant had been acquitted and evidence of marijuana for which he had been found guilty; and (3) erred in affirming the trial court's decision to allow a witness to testify regarding events he did not perceive in real-time. View "Gasaway v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of two counts of trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree, second or greater offense and its sentence of twenty-seven years in prison, holding that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court violated his constitutional right to confront witnesses against him by permitting three witnesses to testify via Zoom and erred by permitting the Commonwealth to join three indictments for trial. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err when it joined the three indictments for trial; and (2) erred when it permitted three witnesses to testify remotely, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "Spalding v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that the trial court acted within its discretion in excluding evidence of a guardianship order in a prior criminal prosecution against Defendant for custodial interference and other related charges, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to apply the proper Ky. R. Evid. 403 analysis.Defendant allegedly broke into a residence where her child lived with the child's father and his girlfriend, assaulted the girlfriend, and fled with the child. Defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude any reference to the guardianship order at issue, asserting that it would be unduly prejudicial. The trial court granted Defendant's motion and excluded the guardianship order. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the trial court erred in determining that evidence in the guardianship order would unduly prejudice Defendant by confusing the jury and that the guardianship evidence was vital to the Commonwealth's case. View "Commonwealth v. Melton" on Justia Law