Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court sentencing Defendant to twenty-five years for first-degree robbery, reckless homicide, and tampering with evidence, holding that there was no error in Defendant’s sentencing proceedings.Defendant was initially convicted for several convictions, including first-degree assault. Following the guilt phase of trial, Defendant waived jury sentencing and entered into a plea agreement as to sentencing. The trial court sentenced Defendant to twenty-five years in accordance with the agreement. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the first-degree assault conviction. On remand, the trial court again sentenced Defendant to twenty-five years. The Supreme Court affirmed the new sentence, holding (1) by entering a plea agreement, Defendant waived his right to jury sentencing; (2) the plea agreement constituted a contract between Defendant and the Commonwealth, but there were no ambiguities; and (3) the reversal of the assault conviction affected neither Defendant’s total sentence nor his parole eligibility. View "Hammond v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

In this negligence action, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the circuit court and court of appeals that Defendants were protected by the immunity doctrine, holding that Louisville Metro Housing Authority (LMHA) was a state agency entitled to the protection of governmental immunity and that LMHA’s employee performing discretionary acts was shielded by qualified official immunity.A three-year-old was shot and killed when his mother took him to visit Terrah Love at her apartment building and someone involved in a fued with Love came to the complex and began shooting. A stray bullet hit and killed the child. The mother sued LMHA, the owner and property management company of the apartments, and Juanita Mitchell, the property manager, for their failure to evict Love, alleging that they negligently caused the child’s death. The lower courts concluded that LMHA was shielded by governmental immunity and Mitchell was shielded by qualified official immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that both defendants were entitled to immunity. View "Bryant v. Louisville Metro Housing Authority" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of first-degree sodomy, possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, and being a persistent felony offender in the first degree, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held that the trial court (1) did not err by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress the handgun or the victim’s testimony; (2) did not err by applying the protection of the Rape Shield Law to exclude evidence that the victim had previously engaged in prostitution; (3) did not err by allowing evidence that the victim was seventeen at the time the crime was committed; (4) did not err by ruling that the admission of the victim’s age at the time of the offense did not open the door to evidence of the victim’s prior prostitution; (5) erred by refusing to allow Defendant to stipulate that he was a convicted felon, but the error was harmless; and (6) did not err by failing to sever Defendant’s possession of a handgun by a convicted felon charge for a separate trial. View "Ward v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

In this appeal from the decision of the court of appeals reversing Defendant’s conviction the Supreme Court exercised its discretion under Ky. R. Civ. P. 76.12(8)(a) and ordered the Commonwealth’s brief before this Court stricken and this appeal dismissed, holding that the Commonwealth failed to comply with section 76.12(4)(c)(iv) and (v).Defendant was found guilty of second-degree cruelty to animals. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court erred when it failed to grant Defendant’s motion for directed verdict. The Commonwealth filed a petition for rehearing, which the court of appeals denied. The Commonwealth then requested discretionary review from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted discretionary review, and the parties filed briefs. The Supreme Court struck the Commonwealth’s brief from the record and dismissed its appeal, holding (1) because the Commonwealth failed to provide any support for its factual assertions in both its statement of the case and argument sections of its brief, it failed to meet the substantial requirement of pinpoint citations to the record specific in section 76.12; and (2) the Commonwealth did not make a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of sections 76.12(4)(c)(iv) and (v). View "Commonwealth v. Roth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ decision reversing the judgment of the circuit court in favor of Defendants, the doctors and hospital in this medical negligence litigation, holding that there was no error in the trial court’s challenged ruling.After the trial court initially entered a judgment in favor of Defendants, the court of appeals reversed and ordered a new trial, concluding that the trial court had erroneously decided a Daubert issue. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the court of appeals for consideration of another issue that had not been addressed. On remand, the court of appeals again reversed, holding that the trial court erred by limiting an expert’s testimony. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the judgment, holding (1) the trial court did not err in limiting the expert’s testimony; and (2) even if the trial court erred in limiting the testimony, that error was harmless. View "Oliphant v. Ries" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals to grant Dr. Robert Kleinfeld’s writ petition precluding the discovery of certain information, holding that the court of appeals did not properly apply the extraordinary writ petition standard.The case began as an insurance dispute. At issue was the insurer’s discovery request for information from Kleinfeld, individually and as corporate representative for Louisville Sports Injury Center, P.S.C. The trial court entered an order compelling LSIC, through Kleinfeld, to produce the requested discovery. Thereafter, LSIC, through Kleinfeld, filed a petition for a writ of prohibition seeking protection from the trial court’s order. The court of appeals granted the petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals abused its discretion when it concluded that the extraordinarily high writ petition standard was met in this case because the court’s decision was unsupported by sound legal principles. View "Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Kleinfeld" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of various crimes for his role as a complicitor in a home invasion, holding that there was no merit to the arguments Defendant raised in this appeal.Specifically, the Court held (1) the trial court correctly denied Defendant’s motion for a directed verdict; (2) the conviction of the principal actor to a lesser offense based on a plea agreement does not preclude the prosecutor from pursuing a greater offense against the complicitor at trial; (3) the trial court did not err in allowing certain testimony; (4) the admission of evidence of Defendant’s purported prior bad acts did not amount to reversible error; (5) the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of cell phone use between Defendant and the principal actor; (6) no reversible error occurred from the trial court’s exclusion from evidence of a photograph showing Defendant in the hospital four days after the home invasion; and (7) the trial court did not err when it did not poll the jury after the foreperson reported an apparent mistake regarding Defendant’s recommended sentence. View "Probus v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of murder and two counts of tampering with physical evidence, holding that no reversible error occurred in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) the trial court did not err when it denied Defendant’s motions for directed verdict on the charges of tampering with physical evidence; (2) no reversible error occurred from the trial court’s jury instructions on protection of another; and (3) the trial court did not err when it allowed the Commonwealth to introduce several photographs of the victim’s body. View "Clark v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions and their corresponding sentences, holding that Appellant’s claims of trial error did not warrant reversal of his convictions.A jury convicted Appellant of seventeen counts, including six counts of first-degree sexual abuse. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not abuse its discretion by failing to sever the counts of the indictments; (2) did not err in allowing evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts; (3) erred by allowing pornographic images into evidence without the victim’s identification, but the error was harmless; (4) did not abuse its discretion in disallowing cross-examination regarding the pornographic evidence; (5) did not abuse its discretion in allowing expert testimony regarding anal sodomy; (5) did not abuse its discretion in allowing the complaining witnesses to be referred to as victims; and (6) did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellant’s motion for mistrial. View "Whaley v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s post-conviction motion requesting that the trial court declare him to be intellectually disabled, which would preclude the imposition of the death penalty, holding that Ky. Rev. Stat. 532.130(2), a statute with an outdated test for ascertaining intellectual disability, is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.Defendant was sentenced to death for the kidnapping, rape, and murder of a teenage girl. Eventually, Defendant filed a Ky. R. Civ. P. 60.02 and 60.03 motion alleging that he is intellectually disabled. The trial court denied the motion without conducting a hearing. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court to conduct a hearing consistent with this opinion, holding that section 532.130(2) does not go far enough in recognizing that, in addition to ascertaining intellectual disability using a bright-line test to determine death-penalty-disqualifying intellectual disability, prevailing medical standards should always take precedence in a court’s determination. View "Woodall v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law