Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for assault in the first-degree but affirmed his convictions of robbery in the first-degree, violating a domestic violence order, and being a persistent felon in the first-degree and his sentence of life imprisonment, holding that a trial court error required reversal in part.On appeal, Defendant raised numerous claims of error, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing certain testimony via Zoom, permitting a witness to testify despite an alleged discovery violation, and failing to grant a directed verdict on the first-degree assault and first-degree robbery charges, and that the Commonwealth committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court erred in permitting a witness to testify via Zoom, requiring reversal of Defendant's first-degree assault conviction; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his remaining allegations of error. View "Campbell v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's judgment ordering McMichael to pay $62,493 in restitution jointly and severally with his co-defendant after he pled guilty to theft by unlawful taking over $500 but less than $10,000, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support the restitution award.Defendant's conviction stemmed from Defendant and his co-defendant removing several pieces of stainless-steel siding from an old diner and selling them for $155.81. In reversing, the court of appeals concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the restitution amount. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no evidence as to the diner's worth at the time of the theft, the diner's worth after the theft, or the value of the recovered stainless-steel, the case must be remanded for a retrial on restitution. View "Commonwealth v. McMichael" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellants' request for post-conviction relief from their murder convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in denying relief.At issue were three post-conviction collateral attack motions seeking to vacate the murder convictions of three appellants (collectively, Appellants). Appellants requested post-conviction relief on the grounds that the combination jury instructions rendered their verdicts non-unanimous. Specifically, Appellants argued that the instructions ran afoul of the unanimity requirement set forth in Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in determining that Ramos did not apply retroactively to these cases and that Appellants' claims were time-barred. View "Halvorsen v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Appellant's convictions for first-degree wanton endangerment and first-degree persistent felony offender and his sentence of seventeen years in prison, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to give a jury instruction on second-degree wanton endangerment.At issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of second-degree wanton endangerment. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding (1) when a defendant has pled not guilty and restricted his defense to disputing the circumstances of the elements of the crime charged, his uncorroborated testimony in support of that defense will generally merit a jury instruction, but there is no bright-line rule that a defendant has to testify, much less that his testimony be corroborated, to received a lesser-included offense instruction; and (2) because Defendant's uncorroborated testimony in this case was evidence in the record that would support a guilt determination on second-degree wanton endangerment, the trial court erred by not giving that instruction to the jury. View "Taylor v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of wanton murder and other crimes and his sentence of thirty years' imprisonment, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Defendant was driving a 2006 Ford Mustang when he t-boned a golf cart that killed the golf cart's passenger. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of wanton murder, first-degree assault, wanton endangerment, operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and operating a motor vehicle without an operator's license. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by (1) excluding evidence for lack of relevance as to additional signage placed in the cart path after the date of the collision; (2) failing to instruct the jury in accordance with its order taking judicial notice; (3) failing to conduct a Daubert hearing before denying Defendant's motion in limine to exclude the testimony of two experts; and (4) did not err by declining to instruct the jury on reckless homicide. View "Pozo-Illas v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court sentencing Defendant to twenty-seven years' imprisonment for his convictions, holding that none of Defendant's claims raised in support of his request for a new trial mandated reversal of his convictions and sentence.Defendant was convicted of murder, four counts of wanton endangerment in the first degree, operating a motor vehicle while under the influence, and failure to give right-of-way to a stopped emergency vehicle. On appeal, Defendant did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the Commonwealth but argued that the trial court made numerous errors with respect to three evidentiary rulings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err in its evidentiary rulings; (2) did not err by denying Defendant's motions to suppress; and (3) erred by forbidding Defendant from using proof of a statement of his, already admitted into evidence, to argue during closing argument that his intent was reckless at most, but the error was harmless. View "Burdette v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals denying Appellant's motion for a writ of mandamus against the circuit court, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.In 1993, Appellant was convicted of 141 counts of first-degree sexual abuse and five counts of first-degree rape. In 2016, a panel of the court of appeals sanctioned Appellant in light of the fact that he had filed more than eighty-four appeals and original actions in an attempt to relitigate his convictions. This matter arose from Appellant's "Notice to Submit Documents to Support Motion for New Trial." After the circuit court denied the submission Appellant filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the circuit court. The court of appeals dismissed the petition as frivolous, relying on its 2016 sanction order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals properly dismissed Appellant's appeal; and (2) the lower courts properly imposed sanctions on Appellant for his history of frivolous and vexatious appeals. View "Violett v. Grise" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals concluding that Defendant's sentence must be vacated because the circuit court committed palpable error, holding relief was warranted but that the court improperly reversed Defendant's probation revocation.Defendant pled guilty to two felonies and of being a persistent felony offender in the second degree and was sentenced to a twenty-two term of imprisonment. Defendant filed a motion to vacate, challenging the plea agreement and his conviction and sentence. The court of appeals concluded that the circuit court committed palpable error, warranting resentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) while the court of appeals erred by treating Defendant's appeal as a direct appeal, the court's conclusion that the circuit court committed reversible error was not erroneous; and (2) the court of appeals erred by reversing the circuit court's probation revocation order. View "Commonwealth v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court finding Defendant guilty of first-degree assault and being a persistent felony offender in the first degree, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court committed no error in its application of Marsy's Law by allowing the complaining witness to be present at trial and committed no palpable error by referring to the complaining witness as a "victim"; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses of extreme emotional disturbance and assault in the second degree. View "Cavanaugh v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of driving under the influence (DUI), first offense, holding that a proper application of the four-factor test set forth in Wells v. Commonwealth, 709 S.W.2d 847 (Ky. App. 1986), supported Defendant's conviction.The district court convicted Defendant of DUI, and the circuit court affirmed, relying a certain circumstantial evidence. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the totality of circumstantial evidence supported Defendant's conviction on the sufficiency of the evidence and that the conviction was not clearly unreasonable from the perspective of a rational fact finder. View "Commonwealth v. Woods" on Justia Law