Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Mary Smith was discharged from her employment with the Estill County Fiscal Court after complaining about working conditions. The Kentucky Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission found that the Fiscal Court’s discharge of Smith was a violation of Ky. Rev. Stat. 338.121(3)(a) because her letter constituted an occupational health “complaint.” The circuit court affirmed. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the Commission exceeded its statutory authority by interpreting what action constitutes a “complaint” under the Kentucky Occupational Safety and Health Act (KOSHA) because only the Kentucky Occupational Safety and Health Board, the quasi-legislative body under KOSHA, could interpret the meaning of undefined terms. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the final order of the Commission, holding that the Commission reasonably interpreted the word “complaint,” and that interpretation was in accord with the purpose of KOSHA. View "Kentucky Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission v. Estill County Fiscal Court" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of second degree assault, one count of fourth degree assault, and being a persistent felony offender in the second degree. The trial court sentenced Defendant to seventeen years’ imprisonment and made a finding that Defendant’s actions constituted a hate crime under Ky. Rev. Stat. 532.031. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions but reversed the trial court’s designation of Defendant’s second-degree assaults as hate crimes, holding (1) section 532.031 is constitutional as written and as applied to Defendant; (2) there was sufficient evidence to prove that Defendant’s perception of one victim’s sexuality was a primary factor in his assaulting her; (3) there was insufficient evidence to support a designation of the other three assaults as hate crimes; (4) the trial court did not make prejudicially erroneous rulings on certain evidentiary issues; (5) any error by the trial court in denying Defendant’s request to conduct re-re-direct did not limit Defendant’s ability to effectively present a defense; and (6) any error in the jury instructions had no impact on Defendant’s substantial rights. View "Burke v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The circuit court dissolved the marriage of Husband and Wife and awarded Wife child support, reserving several other issues, including maintenance and property division, for later disposition. After those issues were decided, Husband appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in its entirety. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not abuse its discretion in determining that the equity in the residence was marital property; and (2) abused its discretion in designating all household goods and furnishings as marital property and ordering those items divided by a random drawing. View "Barber v. Bradley" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first degree robbery, first degree assault, reckless homicide, and tampering with physical evidence. Appellant was sentenced to a total sentence of twenty-five years. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions for first degree robbery, reckless homicide, and tampering with physical evidence but reversed his conviction for first degree assault, holding (1) Appellant was not denied a fair trial by the presence of courtroom spectators wearing t-shirts sympathetic to the victim; (2) Appellant was improperly convicted of first degree assault because Appellant’s first degree assault charge merged into his reckless homicide charge; (3) the trial court did not err by denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss four jurors for cause; (4) the trial court did not err by denying Appellant’s request for a voluntary intoxication instruction; and (5) the trial court did not err by denying Appellant’s request for a duress instruction. Remanded. View "Hammond v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law