Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree manslaughter and to being a persistent felony offender in the first degree, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion to exclude a deceased eyewitness's preliminary hearing testimony.At issue on appeal was whether the testimony of a witness taken at a preliminary hearing could be used at Defendant's trial where the witness became unavailable due to her death. The trial court denied Defendant's motion to exclude the preliminary hearing testimony, concluding that, under the circumstances, Defendant was not denied a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine the witness and that the testimony had the hallmarks of reliability. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's motion to exclude the preliminary hearing testimony from trial. View "Shields v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of two counts of wanton murder, two counts of assault in the first degree and other offenses, holding that the circuit court did not err in its evidentiary rulings.After leading law enforcement officers and three law enforcement agencies on a two-county chase Defendant crashed his truck into a vehicle occupied by four teenagers. The driver and front-seat passenger died, and the other two passengers suffered significant injuries. On appeal, Defendant argued that the officers involved in the chase violated their respective agencies' policies and procedures regarding high-speed pursuits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not abuse its discretion by excluding police pursuit policies and procedures from evidence; and (2) did not commit reversible error by allowing a deputy to be cross-examined about the reprimands in his personnel file. View "Welsh v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus sought by The Cincinnati Enquirer, a Division of Gannett GP Media, Inc., and directed at two judges of the Kentucky Court of Appeals who presided over separate trials in which the Enquirer was denied leave to intervene, holding that the Court of Appeals erred.These matters concerned constitutional challenges to Casey's Law, Ky. Rev. Stat. 222.430. Because all proceedings in such actions are confidential and not open to the general public the Court of Appeals entered orders in each action directing the record to remain confidential and restricting access to the Court. The Enquirer moved to intervene in each action to obtain access in order to court records. Intervention was denied. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Court of Appeals erroneously denied access to the record. View "Cincinnati Enquirer v. Honorable Dixon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree sodomy and his sentence of twenty years in prison, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant challenged the trial court's refusal to strike two jurors for cause during voir dire and argued that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the Commonwealth to make an allegedly improper assertion about him during closing arguments. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to strike the two jurors was not an abuse of discretion; and (2) the prosecutor's statements during closing arguments were not reversible error. View "Robinson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of three counts of first-degree, second-offense, trafficking in a controlled substance and sentencing him to thirty-two years in prison, holding that the trial court did not reversibly err.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court committed reversible error when it inadvertently read the "second offense" portion of his indictment to the venire as jury selection began and when it admitted into evidence photos of Defendant taken at jail after his arrest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's request for a mistrial and in allowing post-arrest photos of Defendant to be admitted into evidence. View "Lewis v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the trial court and court of appeals that summary judgment was proper in this whistleblower case, holding that Plaintiff's allegations related to a University of Kentucky (UK) internal administrative regulation and did not constitute a disclosure protected by the Kentucky Whistleblower Act (KWA).Plaintiff, a trauma surgeon and tenured professor of surgery, initiated this action against UK alleging claims under the KWA. The trial court granted summary judgment for UK, concluding that Plaintiff failed to qualify for whistleblower protection under Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.102. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff's allegations related to UK's administrative regulation AR 3:14 was not a disclosure protected by the KWA, and Plaintiff's other identified communications did not meet the KWA's requirements. View "Kearney v. University of Kentucky" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's motion for relief from his conviction, holding that the circuit court did not err.After a second trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of complicity to murder, first-degree robbery and first-degree burglary. Defendant later brought a Ky. R. Crim. P. (RCr) 11.42, RCr 10.02, Ky. R. Civ. P. (CR) 60.02 and CR 60.03 motion for relief, arguing that the United States Supreme Court's decision in McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S.Ct. 1500, governed his claim that his trial counsel conceded guilt against his expressed desire to maintain actual innocence of the charged crimes. The circuit court denied the motion on the grounds that it was both substantively and procedurally improper. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court correctly ruled that Epperson v. Commonwealth, No. 2017-SC-000044-MR, 2018 WL 3920226 (Ky. Aug. 16, 2018), was controlling law of the case; and (2) the circuit court correctly ruled that the motion was an impermissible successive collateral attack. View "Epperson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of cocaine discovered after a dog sniff of the vehicle in which Defendant was a passenger, holding that the stop was extended, and that extension was not justified by reasonable, articulable suspicion.Defendant was charged with first-degree possession of cocaine. He pled not guilty and filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that he was illegally detained and that the police did not have reasonable, articulable suspicion to call the dog. The trial court determined that it was a valid stop and that the evidence should not be suppressed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the traffic stop was extended; (2) the Commonwealth failed to establish simultaneous missions that permitted the seizure; and (3) the Commonwealth did not meet its burden of establishing reasonable, articulable suspicion. View "Commonwealth v. Clayborne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Petitioners' petitions for writs of mandamus seeking dismissal of their respective criminal indictments for various felony and misdemeanor offenses, holding that Petitioners were not entitled to the writ.In their petitions, Petitioners argued that the circuit court erred in denying their motions to dismiss their indictments on the grounds that the appointment of the Fayette County Attorney as special prosecutor was invalid. The court of appeals denied the writs. On appeal, Petitioners made arguments regarding the distribution of prosecutorial duties and the ability of a county attorney to prosecute cases outside of their judicial district or circuit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioners failed to identify any irreparable harm or injury that would result from the Fayette County Attorney's prosecution of their respective cases. View "Goble v. Mattox" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the order of the Board vacating an order of the administrative law judge (ALJ) and remanding the claim back to him to enter an award terminating Michael O'Bryan's benefits at age seventy, holding that the court of appeals did not err.O'Bryan received a work-related injury at age sixty-five, leading to his disability. The ALJ found O'Bryan to be permanently totally disabled and awarded him benefits that would continue as long as he remained disabled. On appeal, the Board held that newly-amended version of Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.730(4) applied to O'Bryan's benefits and that they should terminate when he reached the age of seventy. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the statute was constitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that O'Bryan's challenges to the amendment to section 342.730(4) were unavailing. View "O'Bryan v. Zip Express" on Justia Law