Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea to possession a handgun as a convicted felon, possessing marijuana, and operating a motor vehicle on a suspended license. Appellant appealed the trial court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence found in the vehicle he was driving at the time of his arrest. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the record contained substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s findings of fact; (2) warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, subject to a few well-established exceptions, such as inventory searches; and (3) under the circumstances of this case, the police acted reasonably in seizing Appellant’s vehicle and performing the subsequent inventory search of its contents. View "Cobb v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a trial, Appellant was convicted of eleven crimes. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions, holding (1) the trial court did not err in determining that Appellant had waived his right to counsel; (2) the trial court properly denied Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the search of Appellant’s person; (3) admission of evidence that the confidential informant’s work resulted in convictions in other cases was not palpable error; (4) the trial court did not err in denying a directed verdict; and (5) the trial court properly allowed Appellant’s sentence to be enhanced as a subsequent offender. View "Lamb v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant was indicted for burglary. Appellant moved in limine to exclude from the evidence any testimony about a surveillance video that no longer existed. In place of the actual video recording, the Commonwealth planned to present testimony of a police detective who had watched the video. The trial court ruled that testimony describing the contents of the missing video could not be introduced at trial. The Commonwealth subsequently moved to dismiss the case without prejudice. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. The order of dismissal memorialized the earlier rulings that excluded testimony describing the burglary video. The Commonwealth then sought appellate review of the pretrial rulings. The court of appeals reversed the order of dismissal, concluding that the trial court erred in ordering the exclusion of the proffered testimony describing the contents of the missing video. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision and dismissed the Commonwealth’s appeal, holding that the entry of the order of dismissal rendered the interlocutory rulings of the trial court moot, and the Commonwealth had no right to appeal from the order of dismissal granted in its favor and at its own request. View "Newkirk v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of second degree assault, one count of fourth degree assault, and being a persistent felony offender in the second degree. The trial court sentenced Defendant to seventeen years’ imprisonment and made a finding that Defendant’s actions constituted a hate crime under Ky. Rev. Stat. 532.031. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions but reversed the trial court’s designation of Defendant’s second-degree assaults as hate crimes, holding (1) section 532.031 is constitutional as written and as applied to Defendant; (2) there was sufficient evidence to prove that Defendant’s perception of one victim’s sexuality was a primary factor in his assaulting her; (3) there was insufficient evidence to support a designation of the other three assaults as hate crimes; (4) the trial court did not make prejudicially erroneous rulings on certain evidentiary issues; (5) any error by the trial court in denying Defendant’s request to conduct re-re-direct did not limit Defendant’s ability to effectively present a defense; and (6) any error in the jury instructions had no impact on Defendant’s substantial rights. View "Burke v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first degree robbery, first degree assault, reckless homicide, and tampering with physical evidence. Appellant was sentenced to a total sentence of twenty-five years. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions for first degree robbery, reckless homicide, and tampering with physical evidence but reversed his conviction for first degree assault, holding (1) Appellant was not denied a fair trial by the presence of courtroom spectators wearing t-shirts sympathetic to the victim; (2) Appellant was improperly convicted of first degree assault because Appellant’s first degree assault charge merged into his reckless homicide charge; (3) the trial court did not err by denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss four jurors for cause; (4) the trial court did not err by denying Appellant’s request for a voluntary intoxication instruction; and (5) the trial court did not err by denying Appellant’s request for a duress instruction. Remanded. View "Hammond v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine and first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance. Defendant was sentenced as a first-degree persistent felon to life in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) delays in bringing Defendant to trial - both the nearly five-year delay between indictment and trial and the more than 180-day delay following Defendant’s pro se speedy-trial motion - did not violate Defendant’s constitutional and statutory rights to a prompt disposition of his charges; (2) law enforcement officers’ warrantless entry of Defendant’s apartment did not violate Defendant’s constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches; (3) none of what Defendant claimed were evidentiary errors was reversible; and (4) the judgment should clearly reflect that Defendant’s twenty-year sentence runs concurrently with his life sentence. View "Goben v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Commonwealth charged Defendant with felony theft. Defendant was acquitted of the charge by a jury at the conclusion of his trial. The Commonwealth appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in discharging the jury panel initially selected to try the case because of its racial composition and then proceeding with the trial after empaneling a second, more racially inclusive jury. Defendant’s acquittal and the Double Jeopardy Clause prevented the Commonwealth from retrying the case against Defendant, but the Supreme Court accepted certification of questions posed by the Commonwealth regarding the issues presented in this case. The Supreme Court answered (1) a trial judge does not have the discretion to dismiss a randomly selected jury panel despite its unrepresentative appearance when it was not shown to have failed to reflect a fair cross-section of the community and where its selection was otherwise lawful; and (2) a trial judge may not generally prohibit the parties during voir dire from examining or challenging a prospective juror with respect to statements made by the juror during a previous voir dire examination, although the judge may impose reasonable limitations on the inquiry. View "Commonwealth v. Doss" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in 1980, Appellant was convicted of three counts of capital murder, three counts of first-degree robbery, and one count of burglary. Appellant was sentenced to death for each of the murders. After he was sentenced, Appellant was subjected to a psychological evaluation, which revealed that he had an overall IQ score of 81. On appeal, Appellant’s psychological evaluation was not raised. The Supreme Court affirmed. In 2004, Appellant filed a motion to set aside his death sentences on the grounds that he was intellectually disabled. After two remands, the trial judge (1) ordered that Appellant was not entitled to state funds for a psychological evaluation; (2) determined that, because Appellant indicated that he would refuse evaluation by the Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center (KCPC), he had waived his intellectual disability claim; and (3) ordered that Appellant’s case be dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Appellant was not entitled to public funds for an expert of his choosing; but (2) Appellant did not waive his intellectual disability claim. Remanded to the trial court to order the KCPC to perform a psychological evaluation of Appellant. View "White v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Robert Guernsey and Trustin Jones were indicted for murder and first-degree robbery. The Commonwealth subsequently filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty against Guernsey and Jones, identifying murder committed in the course of first-degree robbery as the statutory aggravator. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court entered an order excluding the death penalty as disproportionate. The Commonwealth filed an interlocutory appeal. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court’s order excluding the death penalty and remanded for further proceedings, holding (1) the circuit court erred by concluding prior to trial that the death penalty would be disproportionate in this prosecution for murder and first-degree robbery; and (2) the Commonwealth did not forfeit the right to interlocutory review of the issue presented. View "Commonwealth v. Guernsey" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of theft by unlawful taking of property worth more than ten thousand dollars, second degree burglary, third degree burglary, and being a persistent felony offender in the second degree. The trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate sentence of twenty years in prison. Appellant appealed, raising four allegations of error. The Supreme Court reversed Appellant’s convictions, holding that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to impeach Appellant with his failure to disclose his alibi and his alibi witness to the police or prosecuting authorities prior to trial, and the error required reversal. Remanded for a new trial. View "Cunningham v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law