Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendants were convicted in a joint trial of several drug-related crimes. The Supreme Court consolidated Defendants’ appeals and affirmed all convictions for both Defendants with the exception of Defendants’ convictions for possession of a methamphetamine precursor, which the Court vacated because, when coupled with the manufacturing methamphetamine convictions, the possession of a methamphetamine precursor convictions violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. In addition, the Court reversed the trial court’s imposition of court fees and costs against Defendants, as the trial court waived court costs, which precluded the assessment of a public defender fee. Remanded. View "Sevier v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of murdering his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to deny Appellant’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal and did not require unreasonable inferences for the jury to reach a guilt verdict; but (2) the trial court erred in admitting testimony about an unrelated incident involving a used condom, as the evidence was impermissible evidence of other acts under Ky. R. Evid. 404(b) given the Commonwealth’s failure to establish proof of the factual condition necessary to make it relevant, and the error was not harmless. Remanded. View "Southworth v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellee was found guilty of second-degree arson, second-degree burglary, and of being a first-degree persistent felony offender. The trial court erred in its peremptory strike allocation during voir dire, but Appellee’s counsel failed to preserve the issue for appeal. Appellee subsequently filed a motion pursuant to RCr 11.42 to vacate his sentence due to ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that he would have used the two additional peremptory strikes denied to him by the trial court in striking two jurors. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Appellee’s allegations were not credible. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in relying on Shane v. Commonwealth in reversing the decision of the trial court; and (2) Appellee failed to demonstrate how he was prejudiced by not being able to strike the two jurors. View "Commonwealth v. Lawson" on Justia Law

In 2008, Appellant stabbed and killed Cory Kessnick. Appellant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that he was entitled to immunity under Ky. Rev. Stat. 503.085, which provides immunity from criminal prosecution to persons who use force in self defense or defense of others. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the use of force employed by Appellant was unlawful. Appellant subsequently entered an Alford plea to charges of second-degree murder and assault under extreme emotional distress but appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss. The court of appeals reversed after undertaking a de novo review of the evidence on record. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that (1) court of appeals applied the incorrect standard of review in reversing the denial of Appellant’s motion to dismiss; and (2) under the correct standard of review, there was a substantial basis for the trial court’s rulings. View "Commonwealth v. Lemons" on Justia Law

Appellee was indicted and convicted of two counts of identity theft. Appellee’s convictions arose from allegations that Appellee opened credit card accounts and obtained checks using her ex-husband’s name and that she filed a tax return and obtained a tax refund in her daughter’s name. The court of appeals reversed both convictions, concluding that the trial court erred in denying Appellee’s motion for a directed verdict because there was insufficient evidence to prove each element of Appellee’s convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) there was insufficient evidence to convict Appellee of the conviction of identity theft relating to her ex-husband; but (2) there was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict of guilt for the conviction relating to Appellee’s daughter. View "Commonwealth v. Goss" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine while in possession of a firearm, of being a convicted felon in possession of a hand gun, and possession of marijuana. The trial court sentenced Appellant as a persistent felony offender to thirty-four years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err by not instructing the jury on unlawful possession of a methamphetamine precursor as a lesser-included offense of manufacturing methamphetamine; and (2) did not err in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, Appellant’s motion to suppress items seized from his home, as the search was done pursuant to a valid search warrant. View "Rawls v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree sodomy, intimidating a participant in the legal process, second-degree wanton endangerment, third-degree terroristic threatening, and being a persistent felony offender in the first degree. Appellant was sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not commit reversible error admitting testimony of a sexual assault nurse examiner; and (2) the trial court did not err by failing to grant Appellant’s motion for a directed verdict on the charge of intimidating a witness in the legal process. View "Edmonds v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant filed to sequential motions to suppress evidence, contending that the warrantless search of his mobile home was illegal and that the Commonwealth did not establish the proper chain of custody for the evidence seized from his home. Both motions were denied, and Defendant was found guilty as charged. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the warrantless search of Defendant's mobile home satisfied neither the textual directives of the Fourth Amendment and Section 10 of the Kentucky Constitution nor the judicially-created exception under Maryland v. Buie.View "Brumley v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a prison disciplinary hearing, Appellant, a prisoner, was found guilty of committing physical action against another inmate resulting in death or serious physical injury. Appellant subsequently filed a declaration of rights action in circuit court appealing the finding of guilt, contending that his due process rights were violated because the prison’s disciplinary hearing officer refused to allow him to call the victim of the assault and declined to view surveillance camera footage of the incident. The circuit court denied the petition. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) if a prison challenges the denial of a prisoner’s request for a particular witness in a disciplinary proceeding by appealing the discipline imposed, the adjustment officer (AO) must provide for the record on review the AO’s reason for denying the witness; (2) if requested by the prisoner in a disciplinary proceeding an AO must review surveillance footage or similar documentary evidence; and (3) Appellant was found guilty and subject to prison discipline as a result of a process that failed to comport with the minimum requirements of due process. Remanded. View "Ramirez v. Nietzel" on Justia Law

Appellee was an inmate when he was allegedly involved in a riot. During an interview with an investigating officer, Appellee requested that three witnesses be questioned who could corroborate his version of events, but the witnesses were not interviewed. After a disciplinary hearing, at which Appellee did not call witnesses or present evidence in his defense, Appellee was disciplined for his participation in the riot. Appellee subsequently filed a petition for declaration of rights in the circuit court, arguing that Appellants violated his due process rights by failing to interview the three purported witnesses and by denying him the right to call witnesses and present evidence in his defense. The trial court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the hearing complied with the minimal requirements of procedural due process as outlined in Wolff v. McDonnell. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the interviewing officer’s failure to interview the requested witnesses did not deprive Appellant of procedural due process as outlined in Wolff; but (2) while Appellee did not have had the right to remain silent or the right to an attorney during his disciplinary hearing, he deserved a new disciplinary hearing because he was erroneously informed that he enjoyed the rights espoused in Miranda. View "White v. Boards-Bey" on Justia Law