Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the attempted murder of his fiancee, of first-degree arson, and of being a second-degree persistent felony offender. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding that the trial court (1) did not deny Defendant the right to present a defense by limiting defense counsel’s questioning of the arson investigator; (2) did not err by admitting evidence that Defendant abused his finacee’s pets; (3) did not err by allowing the prosecutor question witnesses about Defendant’s mental illness, anger problems, and status as a non-native eastern Kentuckian; and (4) erred by admitting improper penalty-phase evidence. View "Stansbury v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of fourteen counts of first-degree unlawful transaction with a minor, fourteen counts of incest, and one count each of use of a minor in a sexual performance, complicity to tampering with a witness, and complicity to tampering with physical evidence. The trial court adopted the jury’s recommendation that Defendant consecutively serve the statutory maximum for each conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the complicity convictions but reversed the remaining convictions, holding that the trial court’s jury instructions, except for those pertaining to Defendant’s complicity charges, denied him a unanimous verdict. Remanded for a retrial. View "Martin v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and first-degree arson. After finding as a statutory aggravator that Defendant murdered the victim in the commission of first-degree robbery, the jury sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of probation or parole. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s first-degree arson conviction and sentence but affirmed his first-degree murder conviction and his sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of probation or parole, holding (1) the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence indicating that the victim was alive before the start of the fire, and therefore, Defendant was entitled to a directed verdict on the first-degree arson charge; and (2) any remaining allegations of error committed by the trial court were either without merit or did not warrant reversal. View "Luna v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of complicity to murder, two counts of criminal attempt to commit murder, two counts of first-degree wanton endangerment, and one count of tampering with physical evidence. Defendant was sentenced to a total sentence of twenty-four years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding (1) the trial court did not err when it admitted the testimony of a gang expert; and (2) during the penalty phase of trial, the jury was properly informed of the law governing the case. View "Smith v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of murder and sodomy in the first degree. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the trial court did not err by denying Appellant’s motion to suppress a statement he gave to law enforcement officers; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to permit Appellant to play his entire statement for the jury; and (3) the trial court did not err by not denying Appellant’s motion for a directed verdict as to the sodomy charge, as there was sufficient corroborating proof to support Appellant’s confession to that crime. View "Bond v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of three counts of murder and sentenced to death. After Appellant’s convictions were affirmed, he filed a motion to obtain DNA testing and analysis of certain evidentiary items. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the matter for an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, the court was informed that two of the items of evidence had been subjected to DNA testing but that one item was not subjected to DNA testing because police officers had discarded the evidence immediately following Appellant’s trial. Appellant moved for a new trial on the grounds that the officers had acted in bad faith in destroying the evidence, thus violating his due process rights. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant previously abandoned his request to have the evidence tested by DNA analysis and therefore waived any complaint he may have had about their unavailability for DNA testing; and (2) Appellant failed to establish that the officers acted in bad faith when they destroyed the evidence. View "Garland v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of murder, first-degree wanton endangerment and second-degree unlawful imprisonment, among other crimes. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court (1) did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to sever the murder charge from the other charges; (2) erred by admitting propensity evidence in rebuttal to Appellant’s interjection of character, but the error was harmless; (3) erred in by admitting a detective’s testimony on Appellant’s truthfulness during post-arrest interview, but the error was harmless; and (4) did not err in allowing the Commonwealth to introduce a crime-scene photograph of the victim’s body showing the fatal gunshot wound. View "Cherry v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law