Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2010, Defendant was charged in the Warren District Court with driving under the influence (DUI) second offense. However, earlier in 2010, Defendant had twice been charged with DUI in the Barren District Court. Therefore, the Warren County Attorney requested that the Warren County charge be continued pending the outcome of the Barren County proceedings. After Defendant pled guilty to both of the Barren County Charges, the Commonwealth was given an indictment against Defendant in Warren County for DUI fourth offense, the two new Barren County convictions counting as Defendant’s second and third predicate convictions. The trial court concluded that Defendant could only be charged and convicted of DUI second offense. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Defendant’s two Barren County convictions were eligible predicate offenses because the convictions were entered prior to the resolution of the Warren County charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s Barren County DUI charges were eligible as predicate offenses should the Warren County proceeding result in a conviction. Remanded. View "Ballinger v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree unlawful transaction with a minor and first-degree sexual abuse. The trial court sentenced Defendant to a total of forty years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not commit reversible error by (1) admitting into evidence Defendant’s statement to a detective that was translated by a translator who was not court certified and by admitting into evidence the detective’s testimony regarding that statement; (2) deciding to declare the jury deadlocked during the sentencing phase; and (3) denying Defendant’s motion to exclude prior bad acts evidence. View "Lopez v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of various sex offenses and sentenced to twenty years in prison. Appellant appealed, arguing, among other things, that his right to an impartial jury was violated when a probation and parole officer served on his jury. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s acceptance of the juror at issue waived his right to appellate review of the trial court’s failure to strike the juror for cause; (2) Appellant’s ineffective assistance claim was premature; (3) the trial court did not err in refusing to hear additional character testimony at final sentencing; and (4) the trial court did not err in failing to note Defendant’s presentence custody credit on the final judgment of conviction and sentence. View "Caraway v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to robbery, burglary, and tampering with physical evidence. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Appellant agreed to cooperate in the prosecution of her co-defendant. The co-defendant filed a motion for an in camera review of Appellant’s psychotherapy records from all previous health providers, arguing that the records were relevant as to Appellant’s credibility. The circuit court entered an order and an amended order requiring Appellant’s counsel to immediately disclose the contact information of every mental health professional that had provided mental health services to Appellant since January 1, 2000. Appellant petitioned the Court of Appeals for a writ to preclude enforcement of the two discovery orders. The Court of Appeals denied the petition. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, granted the writ, and vacated the trial court’s discovery orders with the exception of the orders regarding records from two mental health services identified as having potentially exculpatory records, holding that the breadth of the trial court’s orders exceeded the bounds permitted by Commonwealth v. Barroso. View "White v. Hon. Barry Willett" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested and taken into custody as a suspect for the murder of his mother. The circuit court halted the allegedly improper questioning of Defendant until Defendant was allowed access to a public defender. Defendant’s father obtained the order from the circuit judge, ex parte, purportedly under the authority of Ky. R. Crim. P. 2.14(2). The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s issuance of the order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Rule 2.14(2) does not provide the trial court with authority to appoint counsel and intercede in the interrogation of an individual in custody before commencement of prosecution where, as a general matter, courts are not vested with general jurisdiction over a criminal matter until the criminal matter becomes a criminal case upon commencement of prosecution; and (2) a motion to suppress is the appropriate means to attack an allegedly improper interrogation resulting from the denial of access to counsel. View "Commonwealth v. Terrell" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of fleeing and evading in the second-degree, being a felon in possession of a handgun, and being a persistent felony offender in the first-degree. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err by denying Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence found incident to a Terry stop; (2) abused its discretion by imposing limitations upon Appellant’s hybrid counsel arrangement, but the error was harmless; (3) did not err by admitting evidence of other crimes; (4) did not err by permitting the Commonwealth to refer to Appellant’s his post-arrest silence; (5) properly denied Appellant’s motions for a continuance; and (6) did not err by imposing court costs. View "Nunn v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder and first-degree arson. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment for each conviction, to be served concurrently. Before trial, the Commonwealth used seven if its nine peremptory challenges to remove women from the venire. Defendant made a Batson motion challenging the Commonwealth’s use of its peremptory challenges. The trial court concluded that the Commonwealth’s proffered rationales were gender neutral and nonpretextual. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s convictions, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Defendant’s Batson challenge and impermissibly allowed the Commonwealth to use its peremptory challenges to dismiss female jurors on the basis of gender. View "Ross v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a guilty plea to both trafficking in a controlled substance in the second degree (TICS2) and being a persistent felony offender (PFO) in the second degree. The trial court sentenced Defendant to one year imprisonment for the TICS2 charge, which was enhanced to five years by the PFO charge. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the case with directions for the trial court to conduct a new sentencing hearing, holding that section Ky. Rev. Stat. 218A.1413, as amended, prohibited the enhancement of Defendant’s sentence beyond a period of three years. The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals and reinstated the sentence of the circuit court, holding that the circuit court was not statutorily barred from enhancing Defendant’s sentence beyond the three-year cap by virtue of his status as a PFO. View "Commonwealth v. Gamble" on Justia Law

Defendant was the subject of two independent cases related to the same victim - one for capital murder and one for capital kidnapping. The convictions in both cases were reversed, and Defendant was retried and again convicted. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s most recent murder conviction and sentence of death. This appeal concerned the parallel kidnapping case, in which, after a retrial, the jury found Defendant guilty of capital kidnapping and other crimes. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death for the kidnapping. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s convictions, holding that evidence of another murder allegedly committed by Defendant and evidence of that murder victim’s background were improperly admitted in this kidnapping case, and the error was prejudicial. View "St. Clair v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of criminal attempt to commit murder, two counts of first-degree robbery, and possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. The Supreme Court reversed and vacated Defendant’s conviction of criminal attempt to commit murder and affirmed the remainder of his convictions, holding (1) the trial court did not err in finding that Defendant’s confession was voluntary and by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress his confession; (2) the trial court erred by admitting Defendant’s redacted confession to the jury, and the improper redaction constituted reversible error; and (3) the jury unanimously convicted Defendant of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. Remanded. View "Sykes v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law