Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to violating Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Ordinance 14-5, which prohibits all begging and soliciting from public streets or intersections within the urban-county area. On appeal, the circuit court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence, determining that Lexington’s Ordinance 14-5 is a content-neutral regulation of speech, thereby requiring a less exacting standard of scrutiny to remain constitutionally viable. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Ordinance 14-5 is a content-based regulation of expression that unconstitutionally abridges freedom of speech under the First Amendment. Remanded to the district court for dismissal of the charge against Defendant. View "Champion v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree sodomy, first-degree sexual abuse, and use of a minor in a sexual performance. Appellant was sentenced to a total of thirty years in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court erred by failing to direct a verdict of acquittal for first-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual abuse; (2) two of Appellant’s remaining arguments concerning his first-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual abuse convictions were moot; (3) the trial court did not err by denying Appellant’s request for a sexual misconduct jury instruction; (4) the prosecutor made improper remarks during closing argument, but the misstatements were not so egregious that they constitute flagrant misconduct undermining the essential fairness of Appellant’s trial; and (5) there was no cumulative effect of multiple errors that would justify reversal. View "Murphy v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After EQT Gathering, LLC constructed a natural gas pipeline along the boundary of Appellants’ property, Appellants filed a civil action in the circuit court alleging that EQT had trespassed upon their land. After a jury trial, the circuit court ruled in favor of Appellants and awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The court of appeals vacated the judgment, concluding that the trial court erred by directing a verdict in Appellants’ favor on the issue of liability and submitting only the issue of damages for the jury’s determination. The court of appeals further concluded, sua sponte, that, upon remand for a new trial, adjoining landowners must be included as parties to the suit before the trespass claim could be resolved. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court erred in directing a verdict on the issue of EQT’s liability for the trespass; but (2) the court of appeals erred in determining that the adjoining landowners were indispensable or necessary parties to the trespass claim and in mandating their involuntary participation in the action. Remanded. View "Fleming v. EQT Gathering, LLC" on Justia Law

Carol Harrell entered into a credit card agreement with Citibank but later defaulted on her promise to repay the debt. The right to collect Harrell’s outstanding debt was later assigned to Unifund CCR Partners. Unifund filed a collection action against Harrell seeking, in addition to the outstanding balance of Harrell’s account, statutory pre-judgment interest pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. 360.010(1). Harrell filed a counterclaim alleging that Unifund’s request for statutory prejudgment interest was in violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The circuit court dismissed Harrell’s counterclaim for failure to state a claim. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the circuit court erred in concluding that Unifund’s claim for statutory interest did not violate the FDCPA and in granting Unifund’s motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Harrell plausibly alleged that Unifund violated the FDCPA. Remanded. View "Unifund CCR Partners v. Harrell" on Justia Law

Kara Sidebottom was injured during the course of her employment. Sidebottom filed a workers’ compensation claim in connection with the work-related injury. In determining Sidebottom’s weekly compensation benefit, the administrative law judge (ALJ) applied Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.140(1)(d). The ALJ determined that Sidebottom was a variable wage employee working on a “wage plus tips” arrangement at the time of her injury. The Uninsured Employers’ Fund appealed, arguing that, at the time of her injury, Sidebottom was a salaried, or fixed wage, employee whose average weekly wage should have been determined in accordance with Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.140(1)(a). The Workers’ Compensation Board disagreed and affirmed the ALJ’s decision. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the ALJ, and hence the Board, applied the correct statute to the facts in determining Sidebottom’s average weekly wage. Remanded. View "Commonwealth, Uninsured Employers’ Fund v. Sidebottom" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea to possession a handgun as a convicted felon, possessing marijuana, and operating a motor vehicle on a suspended license. Appellant appealed the trial court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence found in the vehicle he was driving at the time of his arrest. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the record contained substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s findings of fact; (2) warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, subject to a few well-established exceptions, such as inventory searches; and (3) under the circumstances of this case, the police acted reasonably in seizing Appellant’s vehicle and performing the subsequent inventory search of its contents. View "Cobb v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a trial, Appellant was convicted of eleven crimes. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions, holding (1) the trial court did not err in determining that Appellant had waived his right to counsel; (2) the trial court properly denied Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the search of Appellant’s person; (3) admission of evidence that the confidential informant’s work resulted in convictions in other cases was not palpable error; (4) the trial court did not err in denying a directed verdict; and (5) the trial court properly allowed Appellant’s sentence to be enhanced as a subsequent offender. View "Lamb v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

In the November 4, 2014 general election for the office of Magoffin County judge executive, Republican candidate John Montgomery challenged the incumbent, Democratic candidate Charles Hardin. The officially-tabulated vote count revealed that Montgomery lost the election to Hardin by twenty-eight votes. Montgomery filed a petition to contest the election. The trial court set aside the election results and declared the office of Magoffin County judge executive vacant pending a new election, concluding that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the election outcome was the result of “fraud and bribery” to the extent that neither contestant could be judged to have been fairly elected. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Hardin was entitled to occupy the office in accordance with the tabulated results of the November 4, 2014 election because Montgomery failed to meet his burden of affirmatively proving fraud, intimidation, bribery, or violence in the conduct of the election such that Hardin cannot be adjudged to have been unfairly elected. View "Hardin v. Montgomery" on Justia Law

Appellant was indicted for burglary. Appellant moved in limine to exclude from the evidence any testimony about a surveillance video that no longer existed. In place of the actual video recording, the Commonwealth planned to present testimony of a police detective who had watched the video. The trial court ruled that testimony describing the contents of the missing video could not be introduced at trial. The Commonwealth subsequently moved to dismiss the case without prejudice. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. The order of dismissal memorialized the earlier rulings that excluded testimony describing the burglary video. The Commonwealth then sought appellate review of the pretrial rulings. The court of appeals reversed the order of dismissal, concluding that the trial court erred in ordering the exclusion of the proffered testimony describing the contents of the missing video. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision and dismissed the Commonwealth’s appeal, holding that the entry of the order of dismissal rendered the interlocutory rulings of the trial court moot, and the Commonwealth had no right to appeal from the order of dismissal granted in its favor and at its own request. View "Newkirk v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The circuit court entered an amended decree of dissolution dissolving the marriage of Husband and Wife and dividing the marital property. At issue in this appeal was the monthly disability benefits Husband received from the Connecticut State Employees Retirement System. The trial court determined that, because Kentucky was the domicile of both parties at the time of dissolution, Kentucky law governed the classification and distribution of the benefits. The court of appeals reversed after applying the “most significant relationship” test from Sections 258 and 259 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, concluding that Connecticut had the most significant relationship to the asset and that the classification and distribution of those benefits should be determined under Connecticut law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the classification and division of all property in dissolution cases is governed by the law of forum - i.e., Kentucky. View "Kirilenko v. Kirilenko" on Justia Law