Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Stephen Driver was convicted of first-degree assault and sentenced to a prison term of fifteen years. The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's judgment. The Supreme Court reversed the first-degree assault conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) the trial court erroneously permitted the Commonwealth to introduce prior bad act evidence of previous violent conduct by Driver against his former wife under Ky. R. Evid. 404(b), and the error was not harmless; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Driver's request for an instruction on assault under extreme emotional disturbance; and (3) an argument made by the prosecutor during closing argument violated the rule that the prosecutor may not make any comment during a criminal trial about the consequences of a particular verdict. View "Driver v. Commonwealth " on Justia Law

Appellant Ronald Copley was sentenced to twenty years in prison after pleading guilty to murdering his wife. Copley appealed, alleging that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of his home and that the evidence was inadmissible because the affidavit supporting the search warrant was not properly sworn pursuant to Ky. R. Crim. P. 2.02 and 13.10. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that while the criminal procedure rules were violated in this case, suppression was not warranted because the error was not of constitutional magnitude, the error did not prejudice Copley, and there was no deliberate disregard of the rules. View "Copley v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant Britton McPherson was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, holding (1) Defendant was not denied a fair trial because he was not allowed to question his alleged accomplice in the murder concerning a prior conviction and her other run-ins with the police; (2) the trial court did not err by refusing to give a missing evidence instruction concerning Defendant's alleged accomplice's interrogation by a homicide detective; and (3) Defendant's sentencing was properly submitted to a second jury impaneled after the initial jury could not agree on a sentence. View "McPherson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with complicity to commit assault in the first degree, attempted burglary in the first degree, and tampering with physical evidence in a juvenile proceeding. Appellant was sixteen years old at the time. The district court found there was no probable cause to believe Appellant had used a firearm in the commission of the offenses under Ky. Rev. Stat. 635.020(4) and therefore declined to order transfer of Appellant to circuit court as a youthful offender. The Commonwealth filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, asking the circuit court to order the district court to transfer Appellant as a youth offender. The circuit court granted the writ, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the writ of mandamus issued by the circuit court was not an abuse of discretion where (1) a crime committed by complicity can fall under the mandatory transfer provision of section 635.020(4), and complicity to commit an offense involving use of a firearm requires transfer when an offense involving direct use of a firearm would; and (2) the district court erred in finding that a firearm was not used in Appellant's offense. View "K.R. v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first-degree rape, first-degree unlawful imprisonment, fourth-degree assault, violating a protective order, and being a persistent felony offender. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's convictions, holding (1) the trial court did not err by denying Appellant's motion for a directed verdict; (2) Appellant's due process rights were not violated by the prosecutor's failure to disclose allegedly exculpatory statements; (3) the trial court improperly admitted into evidence certain statements contained in the victim's medical records, but the error was harmless, and the admission did not violate Appellant's rights under the Confrontation Clause; (4) the trial court did not err in excluding certain statements Appellant made to police; and (5) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting prior consistent statements offered to rehabilitate an impeached witness. View "James v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant Michael Dunn was convicted of five counts of first-degree sodomy. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's convictions, holding (1) the trial court did not err when it refused to suppress the condom seized from Appellant's property during a search by law enforcement officers, and the court properly admitted the condom into evidence; (2) the trial judge did not err by not granting Appellant's motion for a bill of particulars, and Appellant was not denied proper notice by the offenses listed in the indictment; (3) the trial judge properly denied Appellant's motion asking the court to allow evidence of the victim's previous sexual behavior; (4) the trial judge did not err in finding certain portions of the victim's psychotherapy records were not exculpatory and in declining to provide the documents to the parties; (5) the trial court did not err by not granting Appellant's motion for a change of venue; and (6) the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in not excusing two jurors whose family members were victims of sexual abuse. View "Dunn v. Commonwealth " on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Bradley Day was convicted of first-degree sexual abuse. The court of appeals affirmed Day's conviction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred by telling the jury the penalty range for a lesser included offense during the guilt phase of trial, and the error was not harmless. The Court also addressed other issues raised in the appeal that were capable of recurring on re-trial, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by (1) admitting evidence of Day's move to another state as "flight evidence," and (2) admitting evidence for clothing the victim wore at the time of the evidence. Remanded. View "Day v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Larrell Porter pled guilty to trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree, being a persistent felony offender in the second degree, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The plea was pursuant to the second plea deal offered by the Commonwealth, the first of which Porter rejected when he refused to comply with a condition attached to the plea deal, namely that he waive his right to view video recordings of the drug buys. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly denied Porter's motion to withdraw his voluntary and knowing guilty plea; (2) the condition in the initial plea offer did not violate Porter's discovery rights or his due process rights; (3) the Commonwealth acted properly when it conditioned the first plea deal on waiver of Porter's right to view the video; and (4) the Commonwealth need not reoffer the previously rejected original plea deal. View "Porter v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant James Miller was convicted of possession of a controlled substance in the first degree and being a persistent felony offender in the first degree, for which he received a twenty-year sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Commonwealth's introduction of Appellant's prior uncharged acts of misconduct during the penalty phase did not constitute palpable error; (2) the presence of an armed corrections officer did not violate Appellant's rights to a fair trial and due process; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to strike the jury for not representing a fair cross-section of the community. View "Miller v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

When Appellant Thomas Jones pled guilty to third-degree rape and other charges, the trial court imposed a twenty-year prison sentence and ordered him to pay $288,000 in restitution, $175 in court costs, and a jail fee of $5,126. Appellant appealed to challenge the pecuniary aspects of the sentence imposed. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the assessment of court costs, as the Commonwealth conceded that aspect of the judgment was improper; and (2) reversed the judgment insofar as it imposed restitution because the imposition of restitution in this case violated Appellant's right to due process and was palpable error. Remanded to determine the issue of restitution. View "Jones v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law