Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Defendants were arrested and charged with drug-related and firearm-related offenses and booked into the county jail. A district judge ordered that the men were not to be released without the posting of a bail bond, and arraignments were scheduled for the next day. The next morning, however, a different district judge ordered that Defendants be released on their own recognizance and postponed their arraignments for four days. The Commonwealth moved to have second judge’s order set aside and the original bond order for Defendants reinstated, asserting that recorded jail telephone conversations indicated that someone “pulled strings” to bring about Defendants’ release and that the release of the two men was improper. The judge to whom the case was assigned denied the Commonwealth’s motion to reinstate the cash bonds set in the original order. The Supreme Court denied the Commonwealth’s request to certify the law but employed its discretionary authority to issue a general writ of prohibition to “exercise control of the Court of Justice,” holding that judges are prohibited from engaging in ex parte communications to change the conditions of a defendant’s release after the initial fixing of bail. View "Commonwealth v. Carman" on Justia Law

In two separate incidents, Appellant’s dog, Franklin, attacked other dogs. In the second incident, Franklin attacked another dog while under the supervision of Appellant’s mother. The district court found Appellant was not liable for the first incident. With regard to the second incident, the court found Appellant guilty of a Class A misdemeanor for “failing to restrain a dangerous dog” in violation of Chapter 91 of the Louisville Metro County Code of Ordinances. The trial court ordered Appellant to pay a fine and serve a jail sentence that was conditionally discharged, and provided animal services with the discretion to euthanize Franklin. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Ky. Rev. Stat. 83A.065(2) is unconstitutional and invalid to the extent that it authorizes Chapter 91 of the Ordinances or similar ordinances which provide for a penalty of incarceration, and Chapter 91 of the Ordinances was invalid to the extent it provides such a penalty; and (2) section 83A.065(2) is valid only to the extent that it vests local governments with the authority to enact penal violations that impose monetary fines. View "Johnson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a methamphetamine precursor, second offense. Defendant was sentenced to a ten-year prison term and placed on supervised probation for a period of five years. While on probation, Defendant was given a drug test that revealed a positive result for the use of methamphetamine. The trial court subsequently revoked his probation pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. 439.3106(1). The court of appeals reversed, concluding that section 439.3106 required the trial court to make specific findings regarding the risk posed to prior victims or the community and whether Defendant could be managed in the community. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) section 439.3106 requires trial courts, before revoking a probationer’s probation, to find that the probationer’s failure to abide by a condition of supervision constitutes a significant risk to prior victims or the community and that the probationer cannot be managed in the community; and (2) the trial court exercised its discretion consistent with statutory criteria in revoking Defendant’s probation in this case. View "Commonwealth v. Andrews" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of murder, assault in the first degree, two counts of assault in the fourth degree, driving under the influence of intoxicants, and tampering with physical evidence. Appellant was sentenced to life in prison for the murder conviction. During jury selection, fifty jurors were excused for cause. On Appellant’s appeal, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether Appellant was entitled to a new trial because of possible interaction between jurors and the murder victim’s mother. On remand, the trial court concluded that Appellant was not entitled to a new trial on this issue. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in failing to strike one of the jurors for cause because she had three associations with Appellant, and there were reasonable grounds to believe that the juror could not render a fair and impartial verdict. View "Sluss v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of sixty-seven counts of possession of matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor. The convictions arose from the discovery upon a forensic examination of partially downloaded child-pornography videos on Appellant’s personal computer and still images in an inaccessible cache on the computer. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the evidence related to the still images found in the thumbcache of Appellant’s computer was insufficient to sustain those convictions; but (2) Appellant was not entitled to a directed verdict on the charges related to the videos. View "Crabtree v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree rape, first-degree sexual abuse, and being a first-degree persistent felony offender. Appellant was sentenced to life without the possibility of probation or parole for twenty-five years. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions and sentences, holding that the trial court (1) did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence that the victim had been previously exposed to allegedly pornographic material on the internet; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in granting the Commonwealth’s motion to strike a juror for cause over defense objection. View "Basham v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law