Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant and Co-defendant were jointly charged with having neglected and abused Defendant's disabled son. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree assault and first-degree criminal abuse. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) counsel's representation of Defendant was not adversely affected by a conflict of interest because Defendant's counsel worked for the same office as did Co-defendant's counsel; (2) Defendant was lawfully charged with and fairly convicted of first-degree assault; (3) the trial court did not err in instructing the jury with respect to the alleged assault; (4) the trial court did not err in instructing the jury with respect to a lesser included offense of assault; (5) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's pre-trial motion for a continuance; and (6) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion for a mistrial. View "Bartley v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first-degree possession of a controlled substance, possession of marijuana, and of being a second-degree persistent felony offender. Appellant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the drug-related evidence seized during a routine traffic stop because its discovery was the product of a custodial detainment that extended beyond the scope of the original purpose of the traffic stop in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in failing to suppress the illegally obtained drug evidence, as the evidence was discovered after the purpose of the traffic stop had concluded, and no exception applied so as to permit the police officer to extend his encounter with Appellant beyond that time. Remanded. View "Turley v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Kenneth Crum, who was horseback riding at the time, was struck and severely injured by a vehicle driven by Raymond Ousley. At the time, Ousley was test-driving the vehicle, an uninsured car titled to Rhonda Ward. Crum sued Ousley for personal injuries and later joined Ousley's auto liability insurer, Kentucky Farm Bureau, for no-fault benefits. Kentucky Farm and Crum settled the negligence claims against Ousley for $25,000. Later, the trial court declared by final order that Kentucky Farm was also required to pay basic reparation benefits (BRBs) to Crum for the motor vehicle accident. The trial court then entered a final order declaring coverage for Crum and ordering Kentucky Farm also to pay Crum the no-fault benefits. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Kentucky law did not allow Crum to recover and Ousley's policy excluded Crum. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a pedestrian struck by an uninsured vehicle being driven by an ininsured driver can recover no-fault benefits from the driver's insurance company; and (2) therefore, Crum was entitled to receive BRBs from Kentucky Farm. View "Samons v. Ky. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of complicity to commit murder, first-degree robbery, first-degree burglary, and tampering with physical evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence, holding (1) any error by the trial court in allowing certain testimony into evidence was harmless; (2) the trial court properly decided to try the murder charges in a single trial; (3) the trial court correctly refused to dismiss the tampering with physical evidence charges as unconstitutional; (4) the admission of testimony regarding alleged homosexual conduct between Defendant and his co-conspirator was appropriate; and (5) the trial court did not err by failing to instruct the jury on criminal facilitation to murder and robbery. View "Murray v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

While working for Employer, Appellant became trapped in a stalled elevator. Employer's security staff attempt to rescue Appellant, but as a result of their attempt, Appellant fell several stories down the elevator shaft, causing serious injuries. Appellant filed for workers' compensation. The ALJ enhanced Appellant's workers' compensation award based on Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.165(1), which provides that if an accident is caused by the intentional failure of an employer to comply with a statute or regulation relative to the maintenance of safety appliance, the claimant's benefits shall be increased, and Ky. Rev. Stat. 338.031, which states that an employer must provide his employees a place to work free from dangerous hazards. The workers' compensation board affirmed. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the ALJ correctly applied the four-part test set forth in Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government v. Offutt to determine that Employer violated section 338.031, and accordingly, the ALJ properly applied the enhancement to Appellant's weekly benefit because of Employer's violation of section 342.165. View "Hornback v. Hardin Memorial Hosp." on Justia Law

Krystal Meredith was twenty years old and thirty-seven weeks pregnant when she began to experience abdominal pain. Krystal visited the Norton Hospital emergency three times in the next three days and was treated by Dr. James Haile. She was sent home following the first two visits but was admitted to the hospital after the third. Subsequent blood work revealed an ongoing infection. After Krystal gave birth to a healthy daughter under the care of Dr. Luis Velasco, it was discovered Krystal had a ruptured appendix and abscess. Krystal later developed acute respiratory distress syndrome and died. Plaintiffs, Krystal's parents, filed suit against Dr. Haile, Dr. Velasco, and the Hospital for wrongful death and loss of parental consortium. A jury found in favor of Defendants, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court twice erred in refusing to strike jurors for cause, and the error was not harmless. Remanded. View "Grubb v. Norton Hosps., Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant was indicted for the robbery and murder of Caesaro Gomez. Appellant, who was sixteen years old at the time of the crimes, was tried as a youthful offender and found guilty by a circuit court jury of murder, first-degree robbery, and intimidating a participant in the legal process. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion to strike for cause; (2) Appellant's argument regarding the validity of Ky. R. Crim. P. 9.40 was unpreserved for appellate review; and (3) the trial court did not err in sentencing Appellant. View "Grider v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced as a second-degree persistent felon to a twenty-year term of imprisonment for first-degree possession of a controlled substance, firearm enhanced and to a concurrent ten-year term of imprisonment for possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. Defendant appealed, contending that a parole officer's incomplete and inaccurate testimony regarding sentence credits potentially available to parolees rendered the penalty phase of his trial fundamentally unfair. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence, holding that to the extent, if any, that the parole officer's lack of detail about credits against a parolee's sentence could be deemed erroneous, the error was not palpable, and therefore, Defendant was fairly sentenced. View "Cox v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of murder, first-degree wanton endangerment, first-degree criminal mischief, and driving under the influence. Appellant was sentenced to thirty-five years imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the trial court (1) abused its discretion in permitting the Commonwealth to introduce Appellant's entire statement refusing a breathalyzer test, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) did not err by permitting the introduction of an accident scene video; (3) did not err in admitting a 911 recording taken shortly after the collision leading to Appellant's convictions; and (4) may have potentially erred in failing to exclude Appellant's post-collision use of profanity, but any error was harmless. Lastly, the Commonwealth committed a discovery violation by introducing a prior misdemeanor conviction without disclosing to the defense its intent to do so, but the error was not prejudicial. View "Baumia v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

At dispute in this case was passway located in Robertson County. Appellants, several individuals, contended that the passway was a private drive, whereas Appellees, Robertson County and one individual, contended that the passway was a county road. Appellants unsuccessfully petitioned the county fiscal court to abandon, or discontinue, the county road system. Appellants then filed a complaint in the circuit court seeking a declaratory judgment that the disputed section was not a lawfully adopted county road. The circuit court treated Appellants' action as a de novo action for declaratory judgment, giving no deference to prior findings of the fiscal court action. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Appellants' action could be brought in the circuit court only as an appeal from a decision of the fiscal court refusing to order the abandonment of the county road, not as a declaratory judgment action. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Appellants properly invoked the declaratory judgment process of Ky. Rev. Stat. 413.040 to challenge the legal status of the disputed passway and that the action could not be characterized as an appeal from a fiscal court decision because no appealable event had occurred. View "Whitley v. Robertson County" on Justia Law