Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case interpreted Ky. Rev. Stat. 620.050, which provides civil and criminal immunity to the reporters of suspected child dependency, neglect, and abuse. On the basis of that immunity, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellants, Norton Hospitals, Neonatal Intensive Care Experts II, and Dr. Ketan Mehta, in a civil suit filed by Brandi Peyton for medical malpractice, negligence, and emotional distress, among other claims. Peyton alleged negligence in generating, interpreting, and reporting toxicology reports that showed Peyton had a high blood alcohol concentration the evening before giving birth to a baby. The court of appeals reversed, opining that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to who initiated the toxicology screening, which, in the court's view, affected the availability of immunity under sections 620.050(1) and 620.050(14). The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding (1) the trial court did not err in finding that there was no issue of material fact as to whether Appellants acted in good faith under Ky. Rev. Stat. 620.030 in reporting the toxicology reports; and (2) Appellants were therefore entitled to immunity under section 620.050(1) as a matter of law. Remanded. View "Norton Hosps., Inc. v. Peyton" on Justia Law

A jury found Appellant guilty of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and of being a second-degree persistent felony offender. The trial court sentenced Appellant to eighteen years in prison. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of Appellant's spouse under Ky. R. Evid. 504(c)(2)(A), an exception to the spousal testimonial privilege. The Supreme Court affirmed, albeit for different reasons, holding (1) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony based on the Court's interpretation of Rule 504(c)(2)(A); but (2) the trial court's decision to permit the spouse to testify was harmless error. View "Meyers v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant shot and killed Christopher Tolliver. At trial, the defense argued that Appellant was acting under an extreme emotional disturbance (EED) at the time of the shooting. The trial court ruled that Dr. Peter Shilling, who diagnosed Appellant with PTSD, could not testify unless Appellant testified because his testimony would include Appellant's hearsay statements regarding the EED. Appellant ultimately testified in order to offer Dr. Shilling's testimony. The jury rejected Appellant's claim of EED and found him guilty of intentional murder, first-degree fleeing or evading police, and leaving the scene of an accident. On appeal, Appellant argued that his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was violated by the trial court's ruling with respect to Dr. Shilling. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court erred in ruling that Appellant's testimony was required in order to admit Dr. Shilling's testimony; and (2) the error was not harmless. View "Lasure v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Employee's employment was terminated by Employer after Employee refused to sign an agreement acknowledging her repeated tardiness violated Employer's code of conduct. Employee subsequently filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits, which was denied on grounds that Employee's discharge was for work related misconduct. A referee with the division of unemployment insurance reversed the determination. The unemployment insurance commission reversed the referee's decision, concluding that Employee was not qualified to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was fired for misconduct. The circuit court affirmed, and the court of appeals reversed the circuit court. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding (1) the commission's conclusion that Employee was not terminated for tardiness but, rather, for refusing to sign the agreement was clearly erroneous; (2) there was substantial evidence to support the commission's finding that Employee was repeatedly tardy; and (3) therefore, pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. 341.370(6), the commission did not err in denying unemployment insurance benefits. View "Ky. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n v. Cecil" on Justia Law

A circuit court jury found Appellant guilty but mentally ill of murder and first-degree assault. Appellant received sentences of life in prison for the murder conviction and twenty years in prison for the assault conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by (1) failing to grant Appellant's motion to dismiss the indictment; (2) instructing the jury that "treatment shall be provided" to a guilty but mentally ill defendant; (3) finding Appellant competent to stand trial; (4) failing to instruct the jury on assault under extreme emotional disturbance; (5) failing to suppress statements made to law enforcement officers; and (6) failing to sever the murder charge from the assault charge. View "Keeling v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant petitioned the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus directing the circuit court to enter an order releasing expert witness funds for an evidentiary hearing regarding his post-conviction ineffective assistance of counsel motion. The court of appeals denied the petition. Appellant appealed, arguing that an expert is necessary to prove that prejudice resulted from his trial counsel's failure to have him evaluated for competency. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' order, holding that Appellant failed to satisfy the threshold requirement of showing a lack of adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise necessary for issuance of a writ. View "Jones v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first degree trafficking in a controlled substance, second or subsequent offense. The circuit court sentenced Appellant to twenty years imprisonment. Appellant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred during the guilt phase of his trial by admitting evidence of other acts of drug trafficking. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) evidence alleging Appellant had committed other acts of drug trafficking was admitted in violation of Ky. R. Evid. 404(b), and the Court could not determine with fair assurance that the error did not substantially sway the verdict; and (2) Appellant waived his right to appellate review of the penalty phase jury instructions. View "Graves v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Upon the dissolution of the marriage of Rachel Ford and Keith Perkins, the circuit court determined that money held in an individual retirement account (IRA) maintained by Keith was marital property and ordered the funds to be divided equally between Keith and Rachel. The court of appeals agreed that the IRA was marital property but reversed the circuit court on the issue of allocating the asset between the parties equally, and remanded with instructions to award Keith 100 percent of the IRA. The Supreme Court vacated the part of the circuit court's judgment dividing the asset and the opinion of the court of appeals, as the circuit court failed to make necessary findings of fact prior to dividing the asset under Kan. Rev. Stat. 403.190. View "Ford v. Perkins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted discretionary review in two cases to consider related questions concerning the constitutional guarantee to the effective assistance of counsel in light of Padilla v. Kentucky, which held that the guarantee is breached when defense counsel fails to advise his or her noncitizen client that a contemplated guilty plea will subject the client to automatic deportation. The court of appeals held (1) the guarantee is breached when counsel fails to advise her client that the crime to which he is pleading guilty will automatically render him subject to a longer period of parole ineligibility under Kentucky's violent offender statute; and (2) the guarantee is not breached when counsel advises his client of the mandatory sex offender treatment applicable to the crime to which he is pleading but fails to advise him of the effects of that program on parole eligibility. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under Padilla, defendants receive ineffective assistance in cases where the defendant's guilty plea was induced by his attorney's misadvice concerning a collateral consequence of the plea sufficiently punitive, grave, and enmeshed with the plea's direct consequences, and so easily determined from the statutes, as to be deemed like deportation. View "Commonwealth v. Pridham" on Justia Law

Appellant filed a medical negligence and wrongful death lawsuit against Hospital after Appellant's husband, who had been admitted to a psychiatric unit in Hospital where suicide precautions were taken, hung himself and died. The circuit court court ordered the disclosure of various documents that Hospital claimed were protected by the attorney-client privilege. The court of appeals found the documents were privileged and granted Hospital's requested writ of prohibition stopping the circuit court from order the disclosure of the documents. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' order, holding that the writ was erroneously granted, as Hospital failed to show that the privilege applied. View "Collins v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law