Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversedvDefendant's convictions for tampering with physical evidence and strangulation, as well as concomitant convictions for persistent felony offender based upon them and a drug paraphernalia conviction but affirmed the conviction for possession of marijuana, holding that errors occurred below requiring reversal.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there was no error in the trial court prohibiting Defendant from inquiring into the victim's rights under Marsy's law; (2) the evidence could not predicate a charge of tampering with evidence under Ky. Rev. Stat. 524.100(1)(a); (3) the trial court erred when it admitted buccal without proper foundation buccal swabs, and the error substantially influenced the jury in determining guilt on the strangulation charge, requiring reversal of the strangulation conviction and the PFO II conviction concomitant with it; and (4) the trial court did not err in refusing to declare a mistrial. View "Saxton v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying two petitions for writs of prohibition in these cases involving allegations of the unconstitutionality of recently-enacted Ky. Rev. Stat. Chapter 202C, holding that the court of appeals did not err.KRS 202C, which went into effect April 2021, created a procedure for indefinite involuntary commitment for incompetent criminal defendants. Petitioners, who were in the midst of KRS 202C proceedings, filed petitions for writs of prohibition requesting relief from the alleged unconstitutional process set out in section 202C. The court of appeals denied relief, concluding that Petitioners had an adequate remedy by way of appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that writ relief was not appropriate. View "G.P. v. Honorable Bisig" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court sentencing Defendant to twenty years in prison in connection with his convictions for three counts of unlawful imprisonment in the first-degree, wanton endangerment in the first-degree, and criminal trespass in the first-degree, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a directed verdict on the charges relating to two victims; (2) Defendant's convictions for first-degree wanton endangerment and first-degree unlawful imprisonment did not violate the on double jeopardy; (3) the trial court did not err in allowing evidence of a prior incident of unlawful imprisonment; and (4) there was no prosecutorial misconduct during the sentencing phase. View "Kelly v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's conviction of one count of tampering with physical evidence and being a persistent felony offender in the second-degree, holding that the trial court should have granted a directed verdict on the tampering charge at the close of the evidence at it was error not to do so.Twice during his trial, Defendant moved for a directed verdict on the tampering charge, arguing that no reasonable juror could find that he concealed the synthetic marijuana leading to his conviction with the requisite intent. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence which a jury could conclude Defendant tampered with physical evidence. View "Commonwealth v. Bell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the circuit court dismissing with prejudice the indictment against Defendant based on the violation of Defendant's right to a speedy trial, holding that the the trial court erred in dismissing with prejudice the case against Defendant.Six months and twenty-three days following Defendant's arrest for first-degree possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia the circuit court dismissed the indictment against Defendant with prejudice, finding that the delay in trying the case had injured Defendant's right to a speedy trial. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the period between Defendant's arrest and the dismissal of his case was not presumptively prejudicial and that the determination that Defendant's speedy-trial rights were violated was premature. View "Commonwealth v. Hensley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's convictions for theft of identity and being a persistent felony offender in the first degree, holding that the court of appeals erred in holding that giving a peace officer false information is not a lesser-included offense of theft of identity.On appeal, the court of appeals concluded that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the misdemeanor offense of giving a peace officer false identifying information as a lesser-included offense to the theft of identity charge and reversed as to that conviction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court acted properly and did not abuse its discretion when it chose not to give jury instructions on a lesser, not-included offense. View "Commonwealth v. Boone" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court sentencing Defendant to twenty years' imprisonment for his convictions of two counts of manslaughter in the second degree, driving under the influence of controlled substances first offense, and persistent felony offender first degree, holding that Defendant's claims of error did not warrant reversal.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court was correct in declining to suppress Defendant's statements statements he made at the accident scene, and suppression of Defendant's blood test was not required in this case; (2) the trial court did not err in excusing a prospective juror for cause; and (3) while certain statements were not properly admissible during the Commonwealth's examination of detective Brandon McPherson, they did not rise to the level of palpable error resulting in manifest injustice. View "Simpson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the circuit court denying Defendant a directed verdict on the charge against her of unlawful access to a computer in the first-degree, holding that Ky. Rev. Stat. 434.840(9)(d) refers to a computer-related purpose.At issue was whether Defendant's act of exchanging the barcodes on two items she purchased with barcodes on two less expensive items and then using the self-scanner at Walmart to purchase the two more expensive items for less than what she should have paid based on the prices at which the items were offered for sale justified conviction for unlawful access to a computer in the first degree. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of a directed verdict on the unlawful access to a computer charge, holding that the term "purpose" in section 434.840(9)(d) refers to an unauthorized computer-related purpose, rather than a broader fraudulent purpose. View "Commonwealth v. Shirley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the circuit court in this criminal case, holding that the case must be remanded for the trial court to consider whether Defendant's consent to a blood draw was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.Defendant entered a conditional plea to one count of manslaughter in the first degree and one count of manslaughter in the second degree. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding that the trial court (1) did not err by failing to suppress Defendant's statements obtained without a Miranda warning; (2) erred in suppressing the results of Defendant's blood draw without determining whether her consent was voluntary where she received a warning that if she refused the blood test and were convicted of DUI, her mandatory minimum jail sentence would be doubled; and (3) did not err by failing to dismiss the case due to alleged abuse of the grand jury process. View "Haney v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant's motion for a writ of mandamus against the circuit court, holding that the court of appeals properly dismissed the appeal.In 1993, Defendant was convicted of 141 counts of first-degree sexual abuse and five counts of first-degree rape and sentenced to 754 years' imprisonment. The current matter arose from the trial court's denial of Defendant's pro se "Notice to Submit Documents to Support Motion for New Trial." Defendant requested a writ of mandamus challenging the denial. The court of appeals dismissed the petition as frivolous. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant did not timely appeal the denial of his motion for a new trial dismissal was the prescribed sanction. View "Violett v. Honorable Grise" on Justia Law