Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was convicted of multiple counts of first-degree sexual abuse and sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. On appeal, Appellant challenged the adequacy of the notice of the charges against him, the trial court's failure to grant a directed verdict, and the trial court's attempt to retain jurisdiction to impose court costs and a partial public-defender fee in the future. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's convictions in their entirety but reversed the trial court's decision regarding costs and fees, holding that because the pertinent statutes do not empower the trial court to retain jurisdiction to determine whether Appellant could pay court costs and partial public-defender fees until after Appellant has completed his sentence, the trial court erred in trying to leave its judgment open. Remanded. View "Buster v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Russell Alred, judge of the judicial court, became the focus of a lengthy investigation by the judicial conduct commission culminating in formal charges consisting of twenty allegations of misconduct in office. Following an adversarial hearing on these charges, the commission found official misconduct on nine of the charges and ordered the judge removed from office. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the commission's findings and legal conclusions as clearly erroneous as to Count V, which charged Judge Alred with changing a defendant's bond conditions without a hearing or giving notice to the defendant, because it was not supported by sufficient evidence; and (2) affirmed the commission's order as to eight counts of official misconduct and the commission's decision to remove Judge Alred from office. View "Alred v. Commonwealth " on Justia Law

Ky. Rev. Stat. 189.820 regulates safety on the public highways by requiring slow-moving vehicles to display a particular brightly colored emblem to warn of the vehicles' slow speed. Appellants, all members of the Old Order Swartzentruber Amish, claimed that the requirement that they use the bright orange-yellow and the triangular shaped emblem unconstitutionally violated their freedom to practice their religion because the emblem interfered with their requirement to be plain and brightly displayed the trinity, a symbol not adopted by the Amish. The lower courts established the requisite rational basis for the statute and found that the bright color, reflective edge, and distinct shape of the slow-moving vehicle emblem required by the statute increased the visibility of the intended warning and was superior to the gray reflective tape proposed instead by Appellants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because section 189.820 is a statute of general applicability, the government need only establish a rational basis for the statute in order to pass constitutional muster; and (2) the statute meets the rational basis standard of review and is thus not unconstitutional. View "Gingerich v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

A circuit court awarded Appellant $120,864 in his simple negligence action against Appellee, House of Imports, after he fell down a set of stairs at the retailer's business establishment. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court committed palpable error in permitting expert testimony of building code violations without instructing the jury as to the applicability of the code. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and reinstated that of the trial court, holding that the trial court did not palpably err in admitting expert testimony of building code violations without a concomitant jury instruction as to the applicability of the code. View "Wright v. House of Imports, Inc. " on Justia Law

This case required the Supreme Court to decide whether a mortgage lienholder has standing to an agreed judgment between the property owner and the purchaser of the property owner's delinquent property tax liens. The court of appeals determined that the mortgage lienholder in this case (Appellee, Commonwealth Bank & Trust Company) did have standing to contest the agreed judgment between the property owner (Appellee, Teretha Murphy) and the owner of the owner's delinquent property tax liens (Appellant, Tax Ease Lien Investments 1, LLC). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Commonwealth Bank had standing to contest the monetary amount awarded in the agreed judgment. View "Tax Ease Lien Invs. 1, LLC v. Commonwealth Bank & Trust" on Justia Law

Appellants Marcus Swan and D'Andre Owens were tried and convicted of multiple crimes related to a violent home invasion they carried out in 2008 in which they stole money and threatened to kill the home's inhabitants, two of whom they ultimately shot and one of whom they threatened to rape and sodomize. Appellants raised numerous issues on appeal, some in common and other independently. The Court (1) affirmed Swan's judgment of conviction and sentence in its entirety; and (2) affirmed in part and reversed in part Owens's judgment, although his overall sentence was unaffected, holding (i) the trial court erred in failing to give an instruction on second-degree assault as a lesser-included offense of first-degree assault, and therefore, Ownens's convictions for first-degree assault must be reversed; and (ii) the trial court erred in failing to grant a directed verdict on the charge of first-degree wanton endangerment of one of the victims, and thus this conviction was reversed. View "Swan v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of murder, assault in the first degree, assault in the fourth degree, driving under the influence of intoxicants, and tampering with physical evidence. The trial court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment. Appellant raised sixteen issues on appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in not giving full consideration to Appellant's claim of juror misconduct, which was founded on a question of first impression alleging that jurors may have lied during voir dire and juror bias through the use of social media websites, namely Facebook. Remanded to the circuit court to hold a hearing on whether the jurors answered voir dire questions truthfully, and, if not, the extent of exposure the jurors had to the Facebook account of the victim's mother, and whether that exposure, if any, tainted the jurors to such extent that it was a miscarriage of justice to allow them to participate as jurors in Appellant's trial. View "Sluss v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellants and Appellees were adjoining landowners who disputed the rights to the use and maintenance of a road or access easement across Appellees' property. The circuit court ordered Appellees to permit Appellants to use the road for the purpose of the Appellants' personal, non-commercial access to part of their property but allowed Appellees to maintain the gate and to keep the gate locked at all times. The trial court further adjudged that Appellants had a duty to maintain the road for the purpose of making it passable for vehicles and farm equipment but barred them from paving or otherwise materially changing the current condition of the roadway. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that Appellants had an express easement to the road, without any reservations or restrictions, and therefore, (1) the trial court's judgment that Appellees could maintain a gate on the road was erroneous; and (2) the trial court's restriction limiting Appellants' use of the road to personal use and prohibiting Appellants from paving or rocking the road was unreasonable. View "Sawyers v. Beller" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to armed robbery and murder and was sentenced to life in prison. Defendant subsequently filed in the trial court a pro se motion seeking relief from the court's judgment. Defendant also requested an evidentiary hearing and assistance from the Department of Public Advocacy (DPA). The trial court granted the latter request, and a DPA attorney entered his notice of appearance on Defendant's behalf. The matter was allowed to lie dormant for more than four years, when counsel finally filed his amendment to Defendant's original motion. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing, finding that counsel's amendment was untimely - both outside the three-year statute of limitations and barred by laches - and that on the merits the claims in Defendant's original motion were refuted by the record. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that to the extent the amended motion sought to raise a new, factually independent claim it was subject to dismissal as untimely, and Defendant's timely claims were facially without merit. View "Roach v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from a judgment of the circuit court convicting him, following a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree. Defendant was found guilty of having robbed at gun point the manager of a cash advance store. The trial court sentenced Defendant to twenty years in prison enhanced to thirty years by virtue of Defendant's status as a second-degree persistent felony offender. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not entitled to suppression of the eyewitness identifications; (2) the trial court correctly limited penalty-range voir dire to unenhanced penalties for the indicted offense; (3) errors by the prosecutors were appropriately addressed by the trial court and did not render the trial unfair; and (4) the penalty phase mistrial did not require a new trial of Defendant's guilt but only a new penalty phase. View "Jacobsen v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law