Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of burglary in the first degree, rape in the first degree, kidnapping, violation of an EPO/DVO, and terroristic threatening, holding that the trial court erred in imposing Defendant's sentence.During penalty phase deliberations, Juror 8 informed the bailiff that she no longer wanted to deliberate. The judge excused the juror and told Defendant he could either waive his right to a twelve-person jury and allow an eleven-person jury to decide his sentence or allow the judge to make the sentencing decision. Defendant objected to eleven jurors, and so the judge decided the sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions but vacated his sentence, holding the trial court erred by failing to conduct a sufficiently searching inquiry to determine Juror 8's potential inability to be fair or impartial and then by excusing the juror. The Court remanded the case for a new penalty phase. View "Jerome v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the opinion of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court finding Primal Vantage Company, Inc. liable for failure to warn and to instruct of the dangers associated with certain polypropylene straps and awarding substantial damages to Kevin and Sante O'Bryan, holding that the trial court abused its discretion.While Kevin was using a ladder stand manufactured by Primal Vantage that must be affixed to a tree to be used for hunting, the polypropylene straps securing the stand to the tree broke. The stand fell, resulting in Kevin sustaining serious injuries. A jury found Primal Vantage liable and awarded both Kevin and his wife damages. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the trial court erred by abandoning its role as evidentiary gatekeeper and allowing the jury to hear substantial evidence regarding other injuries and accidents involving ladderstands, then declaring the evidence inadmissible, and failing to admonish the jury not to consider the inadmissible other-incidents evidence. View "Primal Vantage Co. v. O'Bryan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of first-degree sodomy and sentencing him to twenty years in prison, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in failing to remove two jurors for cause during voir dire and committed a reversible error by allowing the Commonwealth to make an improper assertion about him during closing arguments. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to strike the jurors was not an abuse of discretion; and (2) the prosecutor's statements during closing arguments were not reversible error. View "Robinson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of one count of second-degree rape, one count of third-degree rape, and two counts of incest, holding that there was no reversible error.On appeal, Defendant argued that his trial court should have been severed from his wife's trial, that his wife's counsel improperly made statements against his interest in closing arguments, that the jury instructions violated his right to a unanimous jury verdict, and that certain evidence at trial was improperly admitted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his allegations of error. View "Sexton v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the circuit court denying Defendant's motion seeking reconsideration of probation pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. 640.075(4), holding that the provisions of Ky. Rev. Stat. 532.045 apply to render a juvenile convicted as a youthful offender of sexual offenses ineligible for probation.When he was a juvenile, Defendant was charged with multiple sex offenses and transferred to the circuit court as a youthful offender. Defendant was convicted. Shortly before he turned twenty-one, Defendant filed his motion to reconsider probation. The circuit court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 532.045 applies to youthful offenders such as Defendant. View "Bloyer v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to suppress location data obtained from the police's search of his real-time cell-site location information (CSLI) and the evidence obtained from the search, holding that suppression was required.Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of first-degree robbery, one count of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, and one count of receiving stolen property. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress because the police's acquisition of Defendant's real-time CSLI constituted a warrantless, unreasonable search. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the officers illegally obtained Defendant's real-time CSLI and that the evidence obtained therefrom should be excluded from evidence. View "Commonwealth v. Reed" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's Ky. R. Crim. P. 11.42, Ky R. Crim. P. 10.02, Ky. R. Civ. P. 60.02, and Ky. R. Civ. P. 60.03 motion for relief, holding that the circuit court did not err.Appellant was convicted of two counts of complicity to murder and other crimes and sentenced to death. In the instant motion, Appellant argued that McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S.Ct. 1500 (2018), governed his claim that his defense counsel provided ineffective assistance. The circuit court denied the motion, determining that the claim was both substantively and procedurally improper. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the circuit court's denial of relief. View "Epperson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court finding Defendant guilty of two counts of murder and four counts of wanton endangerment in the first degree and sentencing him to life in prison without the possibility of parole, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.In 2012, a jury found Defendant guilty but mentally ill of murder and wanton endangerment. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. On remand, the main issue at trial was Defendant's affirmative defense of insanity or, in the alternative, extreme emotional disturbance. A jury found Defendant guilty of the crimes and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding Defendant's claims on appeal were without merit. View "Hall v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals upholding the trial court's order ordering Appellant to complete the Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP) but reversing the trial court's determination that Appellant was not subject to post-incarceration supervision, holding that the trial court did not err in issuing its final judgment.Appellant entered an Alford plea to two counts of criminal attempt to commit first-degree unlawful transaction with a minor and one count of third-degree terroristic threatening. The trial court imposed a ten-year prison sentence, ordered Appellant to complete the SOTP, but determined that Appellant was not subject to post-incarceration supervision. The court of appeals reversed in part, concluding that Appellant was not subject to post-incarceration supervision. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the court of appeals erred in concluding that Appellant was eligible for post-incarceration supervision. View "Richardson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's conviction and sentence and ordering a new trial, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a proposed witness, Alvin Couch, was available for trial.Defendant was convicted of several drug-related offenses and sentenced him to a total of ten years' imprisonment. During trial, Defendant sought to introduce a certified video record of Couch's plea of guilty to manufacturing the drugs at issue. During trial, Defendant represented that he had subpoenaed Couch to testify at trial, but the trial court found no order existed compelling Couch's attendance at trial, and therefore, Couch did not qualify as an unavailable witness under Ky. R. Evid. 804(a)(5). The court of appeals reversed and ordered a new trial, concluding that defense counsel's representation that a subpoena had been delivered was sufficient to demonstrate a good faith effort had been made to procure Couch's presence at trial. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Couch was available for trial. View "Commonwealth v. Roark" on Justia Law