Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendants were convicted in a joint trial of several drug-related crimes. The Supreme Court consolidated Defendants’ appeals and affirmed all convictions for both Defendants with the exception of Defendants’ convictions for possession of a methamphetamine precursor, which the Court vacated because, when coupled with the manufacturing methamphetamine convictions, the possession of a methamphetamine precursor convictions violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. In addition, the Court reversed the trial court’s imposition of court fees and costs against Defendants, as the trial court waived court costs, which precluded the assessment of a public defender fee. Remanded. View "Sevier v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of murdering his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to deny Appellant’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal and did not require unreasonable inferences for the jury to reach a guilt verdict; but (2) the trial court erred in admitting testimony about an unrelated incident involving a used condom, as the evidence was impermissible evidence of other acts under Ky. R. Evid. 404(b) given the Commonwealth’s failure to establish proof of the factual condition necessary to make it relevant, and the error was not harmless. Remanded. View "Southworth v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Certified Tool and Manufacturing Corporation purchased a Komatsu press and agreed in a “lease” to pay Capital Community Economic/Industrial Development Corporation monthly payments for the press. Certified Tool later obtained a loan from Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC and granted Delphi an interest in its property under a security agreement. Delphi perfected its security interest. After Certified Tool defaulted on the promissory note and security agreement, Delphi filed a declaratory judgment action asserting that its perfected security interest in the Komatsu press was superior to the unperfected security interest claimed by Capital Community. The court of appeals concluded that Capital Community’s security interest in the Komatsu press was not subject to the provisions of Article 9 of the state’s Uniform Commercial Code. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was no basis for excusing Capital Community’s failure to comply with Article 9, and therefore, Delphi’s perfected security interest in the Komatsu press prevailed over Capital Community’s unperfected security interest. View "Delphi Auto. Sys., Inc. v. Capital Cmty." on Justia Law

In 2010, the Kentucky Board of Nursing placed the Sullivan University System’s (Spencerian) Applied Science in Nursing (ADN) program on probationary status. Spencerian filed suit, alleging that the Board’s decision was erroneous because it retroactively applied newly-enacted 2009 regulatory amendments to Spencerian. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the Board. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the Board improperly applied the amended administrative regulations to Spencerian’s conduct that predated the amendments. During the pendency of this appeal, Spencerian instituted numerous changes to its ADN program, which resulted in the Board placing the ADN program on full approval status. Therefore, under the circumstances, the Supreme Court dismissed the Board’s appeal as moot and vacated the rulings of the lower courts. View "Commonwealth, Ky. Bd. of Nursing v. Sullivan Univ. Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellee was found guilty of second-degree arson, second-degree burglary, and of being a first-degree persistent felony offender. The trial court erred in its peremptory strike allocation during voir dire, but Appellee’s counsel failed to preserve the issue for appeal. Appellee subsequently filed a motion pursuant to RCr 11.42 to vacate his sentence due to ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that he would have used the two additional peremptory strikes denied to him by the trial court in striking two jurors. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Appellee’s allegations were not credible. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in relying on Shane v. Commonwealth in reversing the decision of the trial court; and (2) Appellee failed to demonstrate how he was prejudiced by not being able to strike the two jurors. View "Commonwealth v. Lawson" on Justia Law

Appellee was indicted and convicted of two counts of identity theft. Appellee’s convictions arose from allegations that Appellee opened credit card accounts and obtained checks using her ex-husband’s name and that she filed a tax return and obtained a tax refund in her daughter’s name. The court of appeals reversed both convictions, concluding that the trial court erred in denying Appellee’s motion for a directed verdict because there was insufficient evidence to prove each element of Appellee’s convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) there was insufficient evidence to convict Appellee of the conviction of identity theft relating to her ex-husband; but (2) there was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict of guilt for the conviction relating to Appellee’s daughter. View "Commonwealth v. Goss" on Justia Law

In 2008, Appellant stabbed and killed Cory Kessnick. Appellant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that he was entitled to immunity under Ky. Rev. Stat. 503.085, which provides immunity from criminal prosecution to persons who use force in self defense or defense of others. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the use of force employed by Appellant was unlawful. Appellant subsequently entered an Alford plea to charges of second-degree murder and assault under extreme emotional distress but appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss. The court of appeals reversed after undertaking a de novo review of the evidence on record. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that (1) court of appeals applied the incorrect standard of review in reversing the denial of Appellant’s motion to dismiss; and (2) under the correct standard of review, there was a substantial basis for the trial court’s rulings. View "Commonwealth v. Lemons" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine while in possession of a firearm, of being a convicted felon in possession of a hand gun, and possession of marijuana. The trial court sentenced Appellant as a persistent felony offender to thirty-four years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err by not instructing the jury on unlawful possession of a methamphetamine precursor as a lesser-included offense of manufacturing methamphetamine; and (2) did not err in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, Appellant’s motion to suppress items seized from his home, as the search was done pursuant to a valid search warrant. View "Rawls v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After Donald Brown had worked for Charles T. Creech, Inc. for more than sixteen years, Creech asked Brown to sign an agreement that contained a non-compete provision. Brown signed the agreement. After Brown went to work for Standlee Hay Company, Creech sued Brown and Standlee, alleging, inter alia, breach of contract, intentional interference with a contract, intentional interference with existing, and prospective business contacts. The trial court issued a temporary injunction enjoining Brown from directly or indirectly competing with Creech and from using information regarding Creech’s customers. The court of appeals determined that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the temporary injunction, and the trial court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of Standlee and Brown. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that issues of fact remained as to whether the non-compete portion of the agreement was enforceable. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the agreement was not enforceable. View "Creech, Inc. v. Brown" on Justia Law

In 2011, the Bullitt County Board of Health enacted a Regulation that prohibited tobacco smoke in all enclosed public places, among other places, and placed additional restrictions regarding tobacco use on smoking-regulated businesses and regulated places. Appellants filed a petition for declaration of rights against the Board, arguing that the Board had exceeded its authority by enacting a substantive law without proper enabling legislation. The trial court agreed with Appellants and held that the Regulation was invalid. The court of appeals reversed, determining that the Regulation was valid and a proper exercise of the Board’s statutory authority. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Board exceeded its statutory authority in adopting the Resolution, and therefore, the Resolution was invalid and unenforceable. View "Bullitt Fiscal Court v. Bullitt County Bd. of Health" on Justia Law