Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals finding that Plaintiff was an invitee when she was injured while visiting the monument marking her son's grave at a cemetery maintained by the City of Versailles, holding that the cemetery was not obligated to inspect and repair the monument, regardless of Plaintiff's status.Plaintiff was injured when the headstone marking the grave of her son dislodged from the base and toppled onto Plaintiff's foot. Plaintiff brought this suit against the City for negligence in maintaining her son's monument. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City, finding that Plaintiff had failed to establish that the City owed her a duty to maintain or repair the headstone. The court of appeals reversed, finding that Plaintiff was a business invitee and that the City owed her an affirmative duty to inspect and repair the monument. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the City did not owe Plaintiff a duty with regard to the monument. View "City of Versailles v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of four counts of first-degree sexual abuse, incest, and other crimes, holding that the trial court gave duplicitous instructions to the jury in violation of Defendant's right to a unanimous jury and his freedom from the threat of double jeopardy.The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions for attempted rape and sexual abuse and otherwise affirmed his convictions, holding (1) the trial court did not err in amending the indictment to include an attempted-rape charge at trial; (2) Defendant was not entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal on the attempted rape charge or the charge of attempted production of a sexual performance by a minor; (3) the trial court erred by allowing medical experts to testify that the victim had identified Defendant as the perpetrator, but reversal was not warranted; and (4) two of the jury instructions violated Defendant's right to a unanimous verdict. View "Justice v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's judgment awarding Borders Self-Storage & Rentals, LLC the sum of $140,000 in this highway condemnation action, holding that the circuit court erred by ruling that the Lawrence County Property Valuation Administrator's (PVA) tax assessment could not be introduced into evidence.At trial, Borders sought to introduce as evidence the assessed tax value of $230,000 reflected in the PVA's records. The circuit court denied the request and ultimately awarded Borders $140,000 as compensation for the condemnation of its real property. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) PVA assessments constitute relevant and probative evidence and should not be stricken; and (2) Borders was entitled to a new trial at which it may introduce the PVA's assessed tax value for the condemned lands. View "Borders Self-Storage & Rentals, LLC v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of sodomy in the first degree, victim under twelve years old, and three counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, victim under twelve years old, holding that Defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced by any alleged error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a directed verdict; (2) the trial court did not err in admitting testimony regarding Defendant's actions; (3) the trial court did not err in concluding that the victim's psychotherapy records did not contain exculpatory evidence; (4) Defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated; and (5) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's motion for a reduced sentence. View "Smith v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree assault and being a second-degree persistent felony offender, holding that any error in the proceedings below did not warrant reversal.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the trial court (1) did not err by denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment based on Defendant's claim of self-defense or defense of others; (2) did not err by admitting certain evidence; (3) did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion for a mistrial; and (4) did not commit palpable error by submitting to the jury documents related to Defendant's prior convictions. View "Wahl v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appealsaffirming the judgment of the trial court denying a motion to compel arbitration in this insurance dispute, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to compel.Grace McGaughey, the trustee of a trust, entered into a contract with Money Concepts Capital Corporation and Legacy Consulting Group, LLC to purchase a variable annuity with Jackson National Life Insurance Company. The contract contained an arbitration agreement. Following McGaughey's death, the executrix of her estate sued Money Concepts, Legacy Conultants, and Jackson, alleging several common law and statutory claims. Money Concepts and Legacy Consulting moved to compel arbitration, which the trial court denied. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that McGaughey's investment was insurance, and therefore, the arbitration provision was unenforceable under Ky. Rev. Stat. 417.050(2). View "Legacy Consulting Group, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's conviction and sentence and ordering a new trial, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that a proposed witness was not unavailable pursuant to Ky. R. Evid. 804(a)(5).Defendant was convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine and other offenses and was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court erred in finding that the witness at issue did not qualify as an unavailable witness under Rule 804(a)(5). The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated Defendant's conviction, holding that Defendant did not satisfy his burden of demonstrating that good faith efforts were made to procure the witness' presence at trial either by process or other reasonable means, and therefore, the trial court did not err in determining that the witness was available for trial. View "Commonwealth v. Roark" on Justia Law