Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was convicted of second degree manslaughter, tampering with physical evidence, and of being a first-degree persistent felony offender. The Supreme Court reversed Appellant’s convictions, holding that the trial court erred by adding a “no duty to retreat” jury instruction to a general self-protection instruction and by inadequately instructing the jury on the justifiable use of force to protect against unwanted sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat and that the instructional errors were prejudicial. The Court addressed Appellant’s other claims of error only to the extent they were likely to recur on retrial or would bar his retrial. View "Ragland v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Defendant was tried and convicted on the handgun charge. After his trial on this charge, Defendant filed a motion to suppress, his second such motion. The trial court denied the motion, and Defendant was subsequently tried on the trafficking charge. During trial, the Commonwealth elicited testimony from a police officer about Defendant’s testimony at the second suppression hearing. Defendant did not object to this testimony but elected not to testify in his own defense. Defendant was subsequently convicted on the trafficking charge. The court of appeals reversed the trafficking conviction, concluding that the use of Defendant’s suppression-hearing testimony violated his right not to incriminate himself and that the error was palpable. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the requirement of an objection is a substantive aspect of the constitutional rule that bars palpable error review, and therefore, the court of appeals erred in resorting to that review. View "Commonwealth v. Taylor" on Justia Law

While he was married to Barbara Van Buskirk, Richard Van Buskirk established an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) with the Dreyfus Family of Funds. Richard identified Barbara as the beneficiary on the account. When Richard and Barbara divorced in 1997, a property settlement agreement entered into by the parties was incorporated into the final divorce decree. Richard died in 2011. Ruth Ann Sadler, Richard’s widow and the administratrix of his estate, filed a motion to intervene in the Van Buskirks’ final divorce action so that she could request a declaration of rights that Barbara had no rights to Richard’s Dreyfus IRA account. The trial court granted Ruth Ann’s motion to intervene but denied her motion to declare that Barbara had no rights to Richard’s IRA, concluding that the agreement was silent with respect to the beneficiary interest in Richard’s IRA and, therefore, the account designation naming Barbara as the beneficiary governed the dispute. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the agreement clearly and unambiguously assigned the full and exclusive ownership interest of the Dreyfus IRA to Richard, and the agreement correspondingly prohibited Barbara from asserting any interest in the IRA owned by Richard. View "Sadler v. Buskirk" on Justia Law

In the dependency, neglect, and abuse actions and subsequent termination of parental rights (TPR) actions underlying this appeal, the family court held the Cabinet for Health and Family Services in contempt for disregarding the rule requiring a prehearing conference request to accompany the filing of a TPR petition and finding contemptuous a case workers’ failure to file a statutorily required report. The Supreme Court vacated the family court’s ruling and remanded for the family court to explain how it believes the Cabinet committed rule and statutory violations and why that violation should be deemed willful disobedience of the court, holding (1) constitutional protections apply to most criminal contempt proceedings; (2) the procedures employed in this contempt case did not accord with those the United States Supreme Court has indicated are due; and (3) the family court’s contempt findings appear to be unsupported. View "Cabinet for Health & Family Servs. v. J.M.G." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree manslaughter. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the language of the provocation qualification in the jury instructions was patently erroneous. On remand, a circuit court jury again convicted Defendant of second-degree manslaughter. Defendant appealed, and the Commonwealth cross-appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred by giving the provocation qualification to self-protection instruction because it was not supported by the evidence, and the error was not harmless; and (2) the trial court deviated from the guidelines found in the Court’s criminal rules in seating the jury, but the deviation was not substantial. View "Barker v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendants Michael and Janie Young placed their unborn child up for adoption. Defendants received payments totaling $4,000 from Act of Love Adoptions of Boston, Massachusetts and $6,000 from Jeff and Tracey Scholen. When Defendants informed the Scholens that they did not want to proceed with the adoption, Defendants were charged with theft by deception over $10,000. Defendants were later indicted by a grand jury. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, which the trial court denied. Defendant subsequently entered into conditional pleas of guilty to theft by deception over $10,000, reserving the right to appeal the denial of their motion to dismiss. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the charges should have been dismissed because no crime occurred. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the court of appeals and the decision of the circuit court denying the motion to dismiss, as the Commonwealth stated enough in the indictment to proceed to trial; and (2) affirmed the court of appeals to the extent that it set aside Defendants’ conviction on the grounds of palpable error creating a manifest injustice, as it was improper to add the funds paid by Act of Love to reach the $10,000 amount where thefts from different victims give rise to separate offenses and cannot be aggregated. View "Commonwealth v. Young" on Justia Law

The Cabinet for Health and Family Services petitioned the family court to involuntarily terminate the parental rights of Mother with respect to her four children. The family court terminated the parental rights of Mother to each child. The court of appeals reversed and vacated the termination orders, concluding that the family court erroneously applied Family Court Rule of Practice and Procedure (FCRPP) 7(1) under the circumstances of this case and that the error was not harmless. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the family court erred in its application of FCRPP 7(1) and that the error was not harmless. View "Commonwealth v. S.H." on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter, second-degree manslaughter, and other crimes. Before final sentencing, Appellant moved to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel and that he relied on erroneous legal advice regarding time served when he entered his guilty plea. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Appellant may have received inaccurate advice from his trial counsel about jail-time credit but that Appellant was not prejudiced by counsel’s mistake. View "Greene v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Department of Revenue assessed additional inheritance taxes on an estate. The court of appeals affirmed the Department’s assessment of tax. At issue on appeal was whether inheritance taxes may be deducted from the value of distributive shares of an estate and whether inheritance tax paid from the estate on behalf of a beneficiary - a bequest of tax - is itself a taxable event. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a reviewing court does not owe any deference to the Kentucky Board of Tax Appeals as to questions of law; (2) inheritance taxes paid by the estate on behalf of a beneficiary of the estate are not “costs of administration” under a will’s tax-exoneration provision but, rather, are separate bequests that are subject to inheritance taxes; (3) the payment of inheritance tax by an estate on behalf of a beneficiary under a tax-exoneration clause is itself a taxable “bequest of tax”; and (4) like the Department, the court of appeals did not properly apply the law to the facts of this case, but because the end result of the court of appeals’ opinion was to uphold the Department’s assessment of additional tax, its judgment upholding the assessment is affirmed. View "Estate of McVey v. Dep’t of Revenue, Fin. & Admin. Cabinet" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol (DUI) after being stopped at a police roadblock conducted by the Kentucky State Police (KSP) at a highway intersection. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the evidence leading to Appellant’s conviction was unconstitutionally obtained because the procedures the KSP employed to set up the roadblock failed to comply with the procedures necessary to implement a suspicionless traffic stop. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the KSP did not comply with the factors set forth in Commonwealth v. Buchanon substantially enough to render this roadblock a reasonable seizure performed in the absence of a warrant or individualized suspicion. View "Commonwealth v. Cox" on Justia Law