Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals holding that the Department for Community Based Services, Cabinet for Health and Family Services (Cabinet) exceeded its statutory authority by investigating allegations that Rebecca Baker neglected children in her care, holding that the Cabinet did not meet its burden of proof to substantiate its allegations of neglect against Baker.Baker worked for an elementary school afterschool program supervising several young children. The Cabinet substantiated findings of neglect against Baker, and a hearing officer affirmed the Cabinet's findings of neglect. On appeal, the court of appeals sua sponte raised the issue of whether the Cabinet had the authority to investigate Baker and concluded that it did not. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Cabinet did not exceed its statutory authority by investigating the allegations against Baker; but (2) the Cabinet did not meet its burden of proof to substantiate the allegation of neglect by Baker. View "Department for Community Based Services v. Baker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the order of the family court in this divorce action, holding that the family court miscalculated the combined monthly income for purposes of setting child support.On appeal, Appellant challenged the family court's classification and division of marital property, calculation of maintenance, and calculation of child support. The court of appeals affirmed the family court's decision in its entirety. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding (1) the family court erred in classifying Appellee's restricted stock units and thus miscalculated the combined monthly income in setting child support; and (2) the family court did not abuse its discretion by not considering Appellee's income as an independent factor for increasing directed maintenance or computing Appellant's reasonable needs. View "Normandin v. Normandin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence of twenty years' imprisonment and convictions of not guilty by reason of insanity for first-degree murder, not guilty by reason of insanity for first-degree burglary, guilty but mentally ill of two counts of second-degree assault and guilty but mentally ill of fourth-degree assault, holding that any error was not prejudicial.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the jury’s verdicts were not impermissibly inconsistent; (2) the trial court did not err by failing to grant Defendant's motions for directed verdict; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to provide lesser-included offense instructions to the jury; (4) the trial court's failure to provide the jury with the definition of "dangerous instrument" was harmless error; (5) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion to strike two jurors for cause; and (6) the trial court erred by not making the requisite statutory findings under Ky. Rev. Stat. 703 before admitting prior bad act evidence, but the error was harmless. View "Exantus v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants in this insurance dispute, holding that the Legislature has clearly and unequivocally excluded captive insurers from the requirements of the Kentucky Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act (USCPA), Ky. Rev. Stat. 304.12-230.Plaintiff brought this action against various healthcare defendants. The medical negligence claims were eventually settled. Thereafter, the circuit court denied Plaintiff's motion for declaratory relief as to his bad faith insurance claim against First Initiatives Insurance, Ltd., a foreign captive insurance entity that provides self-insurance for Catholic Health Initiatives, Inc. The court granted summary judgment for Catholic Health and First Initiatives. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that First Initiatives, as a captive insurer, is not subject to the USCPA. View "Merritt v. Catholic Health Initiatives, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions for first-degree manslaughter, tampering with physical evidence, possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, and second-degree persistent felony offender, holding that Defendant was deprived of his right to counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings.On appeal, Defendant argued that he was denied the right to conflict-free counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings - during an in-chambers hearing the trial court conducted on the fitness and ability of Defendant's private attorney. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the court's decision not to inform Defendant of the Commonwealth's allegations against his private attorney and not offer him the opportunity to retain independent counsel to represent his interests was of constitutional magnitude. View "Downs v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that, in response to the COVID-19 global pandemic, Governor Andy Beshear properly declared a state of emergency and validly revoked the emergency powers granted to him in Ky. Rev. Stat. 93A.After the Governor declared a state of emergency pursuant to Executive Order 2020-215 on March 6, 2020 and proceeded to issue additional executive orders and emergency regulations, Plaintiffs filed suit challenging various orders affecting the reopening of their businesses. The parties obtained a restraining order prohibiting enforcement of certain of the emergency orders. On July 17, 2020, the Supreme Court stayed all injunctive orders. In this opinion, the Supreme Court lifted the stay and directed that those cases proceed consistent with this opinion and, as to circuit court litigation, reversed the July 20, 2020 order that would have granted a temporary injunction against enforcement of the Governor's orders but that was held in abeyance and remanded the case. The Court held (1) the governor properly invoked his emergency powers; (2) during the emergency, no violation of the separation of powers provisions of the Kentucky Constitution occurred; (3) Ky. Rev. Stat. 13A does not limit the governor's authority under the Constitution and Ky. Rev. Stat. 39A in the event of an emergency; and (4) the challenged orders and regulations are not arbitrary under the Constitution. View "Beshear v. Honorable Glenn E. Acree" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals dismissing Upper Pond Creek Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.'s appeal of the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss a portion of Plaintiffs' claims until material facts could be developed in discovery, holding that the court of appeals properly concluded that it lacked appellate jurisdiction.Ronnie and Amanda Kinser filed this complaint alleging that the fire department was negligent in providing assistance to Ronnie and in hiring, training, supervising, and retaining its employees. Pond Creek filed a motion to dismiss, asserting governmental immunity under Ky. Rev. Stat. 75.070. The circuit court granted the motion. The Kinsers filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate, arguing that section 75.070 does not expressly apply to their claims for negligent hiring and training. The circuit court granted the Kinsers 120 days to conduct discovery regarding the immunity of the fire department and its employees and then sustained the motion to alter, amend, or vacate as to the negligent hiring and training claims. The court of appeals dismissed Pond Creek's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that the interlocutory order was not immediately appealable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that this was an improper interlocutory appeal. View "Upper Pond Creek Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. v. Kinser" on Justia Law

In this dependency, abuse, and neglect proceeding, the Supreme Court held that Ky. Rev. Stat. 620.100(1)(b) does not entitle an indigent parent to state-funded expert assistance in dependency, neglect, and abuse (DNA) cases but that, under certain circumstances, parents are entitled to reasonably necessary expert assistance under the due process provisions of the Kentucky and United States Constitutions.The Cabinet for Health and Family Services filed DNA petitions on behalf of Parents' children based on risk of harm. The family court determined that Mother and Father were indigent, but when counsel for both parties requested funds to hire a medical expert the court denied the request. The court then found that Parents' three children were neglected or abused. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that section 620.100(1)(b) grants indigent parents a right to funding for reasonably necessary expert assistance. The Supreme Court reversed insofar as the court's holding relied on Ky. Rev. Stat. 620.100 but affirmed the court's reversal of the family court on constitutional grounds, holding that whether due process requires a court-appointed expert is best left to the judgment of the trial court. The Court remanded the case for new DNA proceedings with instructions for the family court to analyze the need for expert assistance prior to adjudication. View "Commonwealth, Cabinet For Health & Family Services v. K.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the ruling of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to classify him as a domestic violence victim pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. 439.3401(5), holding that the evidence was sufficient to satisfy Defendant's burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he was a victim of domestic violence.Defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree for the death of his wife. Defendant moved the trial court to classify him as a domestic violence victim, which would reduce his parole eligibility from eighty-five percent of his sentence to twenty percent of his sentence. The trial court denied the motion, but the court of appeals reversed, concluding that Defendant successfully connected the physical and verbal domestic violence he experienced to the crime he committed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant proved that he was a victim of domestic violence in regard to the manslaughter of his wife. View "Commonwealth v. Crowe" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's drug-related convictions, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.After he was arrested and indicted, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized during a traffic stop, arguing that the law enforcement officer impermissibly prolonged the stop to facilitate a dog sniff search. The trial court denied the request. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the actions taken to facilitate the arrest of Defendant's passenger did not impermissibly extend his traffic stop, and therefore, the trial court correctly denied Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence resulting from the subsequent use of the narcotics dog. View "Rhoton v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law