Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence discovered in his vehicle during a traffic stop, holding that the initial traffic stop was impermissibly prolonged to allow a canine search to proceed. Therefore, the dog sniff that followed was unreasonable and constitutionally impermissible and must be suppressed.Upon entered a conditional plea, Appellant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, first degree, and carrying a concealed deadly weapon. Appellant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence found after a canine sniff search indicated the presence of drugs. The Supreme Court reversed the motion to suppress, holding that, under the totality of the circumstances, while the initial traffic stop was valid, the stop was unconstitutionally prolonged. View "Moberly v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed and vacated Appellant’s conviction and corresponding sentence for tampering with physical evidence but affirmed the trial court as to Appellant’s remaining convictions of murder, first-degree robbery, and possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. The Court held (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it did not allow defense counsel to argue in closing that the Commonwealth produced no evidence of motive; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to introduce unauthenticated call logs, but the error was harmless; (3) the trial court erred in failing to grant a directed verdict as to the tampering with physical evidence charge; and (4) the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct on facilitation to murder and first-degree robbery. View "Baker v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Life without parole (LWOP) for juveniles does not always offend the federal or Kentucky Constitutions, so long as it comports with a discretionary scheme and the defendant has a meaningful opportunity for the jury to consider mitigating evidence.Appellant was under the age of eighteen when he participated in the murder of two people and the deadly assault of a twelve-year-old girl. The circuit court sentenced Appellant to LWOP. In this appeal from the denial of relief on Appellant’s third Ky. R. Criminal. P. 11.42 motion and his second Ky. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion, the Supreme Court held (1) Appellant’s sentencing was constitutionally permissible; but (2) under this Court’s more recent rulings regarding penalties allowable under the juvenile code, Appellant’s sentence was statutorily prohibited. Consequently, the Court remanded this case for the trial court to impose the lawful sentence of LWOP for twenty-five years. View "Phon v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ decision to deny a writ of prohibition sought by Miki Thompson in this case alleging that Kara Vance’s suicide was caused by Timothy Lavender’s negligent prescribing of the acne medicine, Accutane.Lavender and Pikeville Dermatology served a subpoena duces tecum seeking production of records and reports pertaining to Vance held by Dr. Marilyn Cassis, Vance’s therapist. Dr. Cassis objected to production of these records without a court order, so Lavender and Pikeville Dermatology obtained a trial court order compelling compliance with the subpoena. Thompson then petitioned for a writ of prohibition, which the court of appeals denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its discovery order. View "Thompson v. Honorable Eddy Coleman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals declining to issue a writ sought by Miki Thompson prohibiting the trial court from enforcing discovery orders entered for inspection and discovery in a wrongful death and negligence action pending in the circuit court. The court of appeals found that Thompson failed to show irreparable injury without the writ or the existence of facts sufficient to justify issuance of the writ under the special-case exception. In affirming, the Supreme Court held that the court of appeals did not err in concluding that complying with the trial court’s orders will not lead to an irreparable injury for Thompson or that the writ must issue under the special-case exception. View "Thompson v. Honorable Eddy Coleman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board upholding the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ), which awarded Michael R. Plumley permanent partial disability benefits.On appeal, the Court held that the ALJ did not err (1) by relying upon the medical report of Dr. Greg Snider, who evaluated Plumley under the range-of-motion method and used terminology different from that which Plumley would use to describe essentially the same condition; (2) by finding that Plumley had three distinct work-related injuries, for each of which the ALJ made three tandem benefit awards rather than a single-injury with a single-benefit award; and (3) in his use of modifier multipliers. View "Plumley v. Kroger, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) affirming the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) awarding Donald Jobe benefits regarding his back.Jobe, an employee of Ford Motor Company, suffered a right hip injury stemming from a work-related accident. Jobe applied for workers’ compensation benefits, asserting that he sustained a low back impairment due to the hip injury. The ALJ found that Jobe’s work-related hip injury was a proximate cause of his low back impairment and awarded Jobe benefits for a fourteen percent permanent partial disability, temporary total disability benefits for the periods he was off work due to his back impairment, and medical benefits. The Board affirmed, concluding that the ALJ had substantial evidence to support his finding that Jobe’s low back impairment had a causal connection to the work-related injury. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the ALJ based his decision that Jobe’s back impairment was work-related on substantial evidence. View "Ford Motor Co. v. Jobe" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court sentencing Appellant to thirty years’ imprisonment for murder and for being a first-degree persistent felony offender. The Court held that the trial court (1) did not err by permitting the Commonwealth to elicit testimony from the coroner about the victim’s estimated time of death; (2) did not err by denying Appellant’s motion to continue the trial; (3) did not err by disqualifying one of Appellant’s attorneys; (4) erred by admitting evidence about the victim’s state of mind prior to his murder, but the error was harmless; and (5) did not err by instructing the jury as to self-defense and extreme emotional disturbance. View "Turner v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of raping and murdering Pamela Armstrong and sentencing Defendant to death. The Court held (1) the trial court did not commit reversible error when it allowed the Commonwealth to admit other bad acts evidence of Appellant as addressed by Ky. R. Evid. 404(b); (2) the trial court’s failure to define the terms “modus operandi” and “identity evidence” in the jury instructions did not violate Appellant’s due process rights; (3) there was no reversible error in the trial court’s refusal to suppress Defendant’s DNA sample; (4) there was no error in the trial judge’s refusal to disqualify himself from presiding over Appellant’s trial; (5) Appellant was not entitled to a new trial on the grounds that the trial court improperly admitted unreliable evidence; (6) any alleged prosecutorial misconduct did not require reversal; and (7) Appellant was not entitled to relief on his remaining claims of error. View "White v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The scope of appellate review of an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s determination of qualified official immunity is limited to the specific issue of whether immunity was properly denied.In this interlocutory appeal, the court of appeals not only agreed with the trial court that Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity but also conclusively determined that Defendants were not negligent as a matter of law. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court, holding that the court of appeals exceeded its scope of appellate review when it addressed the substantive claim of negligence on an interlocutory appeal of a decision about qualified official immunity. View "Baker v. Fields" on Justia Law