Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant appealed his maximum sentence of twenty years imprisonment for the crimes of second-degree robbery and tampering with physical evidence as a second-degree persistent felony offender. At issue was whether the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of prior parole violations during the sentencing phase. The court affirmed the judgment and held that trial court properly admitted the parole violations under KRE 404(b) where they were offered for the purpose of truth-in sentencing. The court also held that appellant had inherent knowledge, constructive notice, that his prior acts could be used against him and therefore, no further specific notice was required.

Appellee was convicted of a first offense violation of Kentucky's Sex Offender Registration Act ("SORA"), KRS 17.510(11), and of being a second-degree persistent felony offender. At issue was whether appellee was required to register for his 1993 conviction of sodomy in the third-degree under the 1994 SORA or any amendments thereto. The court held that appellee was never required to register under any version of SORA and, therefore, could not be guilty of the crime of failing to register. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment and sentence and ordered the release of appellee.

Appellants appealed the court of appeals' denial of a writ of mandamus or prohibition requiring media access to a juror contempt hearing where the suit arose from a hearing held by the circuit judge, appellee, to address a juror's alleged disobedience of that court's admonition to avoid publicity about the case. At issue was whether the court of appeals properly denied the writ for mootness and properly denied a writ of mandamus or prohibition on grounds of mootness. The court reversed the denial of the writ and held that the suit was moot but an exception to the mootness doctrine allowed appellants to pursue a writ when the suit was capable of repetition but evaded review. The court also held that appellants were entitled to a writ stating that criminal contempt hearings were to be afforded public access where the public's interest in a criminal contempt proceeding was essentially the same as its interest in any criminal trial. The court also noted that public access was not required, however, for the court's jury management functions, which were to be kept separate from contempt proceedings.

Appellant appealed his conviction of wanton murder when he killed his girlfriend's three-month old son. At issue was whether the trial court erred by rejecting appellant's request for an instruction on the offense of first-degree manslaughter under KRS 507.030 where appellant maintained that the proof at trial permitted a rational juror to believe not that he acted wantonly, but that he intended to injure the child and while doing so, unintentionally killed him. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the circuit court did not err by rejecting appellant's instruction where evidence of appellant's unrestrained attack upon the infant did not support a distinction between an intent to injure the child and a wanton disregard of the child's life.

The court of appeals affirmed the decision in which the Workers' Compensation Board ("Board") held that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") erred by denying future medical benefits for claimant's work-related injury but that the evidence did not compel an award of permanent income benefits. At issue was whether substantial evidence supported an award of future medical benefits and whether the evidence compelled the ALJ to find that claimant's injury produced a permanent impairment rating and entitled him to permanent income benefits. The court held that KRS 342.020(1) entitled claimant to be awarded future medical benefits where evidence that he required no medical treatment as of the date he reached maximum medical improvement or the date that his claim was heard was an improper basis to deny future medical benefits. The court also held that the evidence the injury warranted a permanent impairment rating was not so overwhelming as to render the decision that was made unreasonable.

The parties were divorced in September 2005 by the circuit court which incorporated into the judgment a settlement agreement awarding maintenance to appellee. Appellant's motion to modify the maintenance award in July 2008 was denied by the trial court and appellate court pursuant to Dame v. Dame. At issue was whether the twenty-year-old Dame case should be overruled where the Dame court stated that it had no jurisdiction to modify an agreement fixing a set amount of maintenance to be paid either in a lump sum or in a specific amount over a definite period of time. The court overruled Dame and held that a maintenance award in a fixed amount to be paid over a definite period of time was subject to modification under KRS 403.250(1). Accordingly, the court reversed the denial of appellant's motion to modify the maintenance award and remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.

Appellant appealed his conviction of intentional murder and sentence of thirty-two years' imprisonment after he shot the murder victim at point-blank range in the back of her head. Appellant raised four issues on review. The court held that the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal where, under the evidence presented, it was not clearly unreasonable for a jury to find appellant guilty and that the Commonwealth introduced more than a mere scintilla of evidence that the shooting was intentional. The court also held that the trial court did not violate appellant's right to a randomly selected jury when it dismissed a qualified juror for cause because appellant waived his jury selection argument under RCr 9.34. The court further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted testimony regarding appellant's harsh language and accusations of theft as it was offered as evidence of motive or absence of mistake or accident. The court finally held that the trial court did not err when it excluded certain testimony relating to appellant's demeanor following the shooting.

Appellant appealed convictions of complicity to manufacture methamphetamine, first-degree possession of methamphetamine, possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and first-degree persistent felony offender. At issue was whether the trial court erred by refusing to suppress all evidence discovered via a warrantless hotel room search and by failing to enter a directed verdict. The court affirmed the conviction and held that appellant did not have a reasonable privacy expectation in the hotel room where the search was conducted after the checkout time elapsed. The court also held that the trial court did not err by failing to enter a directed verdict because appellant was convicted of two previous felonies and the "concurrent sentence break" did not apply to appellant.

An administrative law judge ("ALJ") found that claimant's work for defendant's temporary employment agency was sporadic but failed to specify whether KRS 342.140(1)(d) or (1)(e) was used to calculate her average weekly wage. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed and remanded the claim and this appeal was taken from the decision by the court of appeals to affirm. The employer argued that which subsection of KRS 342.140(1) applied was a factual determination to be made by the ALJ; that the ALJ committed harmless error by failing to specify the subsection of KRS 342.140(1) used in the average weekly wage calculation; and that additional proof should not be permitted on remand. Claimant defended the court of appeals' decision but also argued in a cross-appeal that the record compelled a finding under KRS 342.140(1)(e) that her average weekly wage was $320.00. The court held that the ALJ did not commit harmless error by failing to specify the subsection relied upon and that the ALJ must analyze the evidence under KRS 342.140(1)(e) on remand. The court reversed with respect to the decision to reopen for additional proof because claimant argued from the outset that KRS 342.140(1)(e) controlled the calculation. The court also held that the record contained adequate evidence to apply the statute under the present circumstances and did not compel the finding that either party sought.

Appellant appealed from his convictions of first-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual abuse for which he received a total sentence of life imprisonment. Appellant raised numerous assignments of error, most of which were not preserved by trial counsel, for which appellant requested palpable error review under RCr 10.26. The court held that the admission of an egregious amount of inadmissible hearsay required appellant's convictions to be reversed and remanded for a new trial.