Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was driving her uninsured vehicle when she collided with another vehicle, allegedly causing $3,600 in damages. Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea to the charged offense of Failure of Owner to Maintain Required Insurance. The district court sentenced Appellant to a two-year sentence, conditionally discharged, with “restitution to be determined.” Before the restitution hearing, Appellant appealed. The circuit court dismissed the appeal, concluding that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because there was no final action from the district court. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court was correct in concluding that its appellate jurisdiction was not properly invoked in this case. View "Dillard v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of intentional murder, two counts of assault in the first degree, and one count of wanton endangerment in the first degree. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded Defendant’s plea agreement from evidence in the guilt phase; (2) the inclusion of a “complicity to the act” instruction did not deprive Defendant of a unanimous verdict; (3) the trial court did not err in the intentional murder instructions by failing to include a method by which the victims were killed; (4) the trial court did not err by admitting one victim’s dying declaration; (5) the Commonwealth’s statements during closing argument in the guilt phase did not amount to prosecutorial misconduct; and (6) the trial court did not err by excluding Defendant’s accomplice’s plea agreement during the penalty phase. View "Lewis v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Each of these three consolidated cases originated with the filing of an action in the circuit court asserting claims against nursing home facilities for personal injuries suffered by a nursing home resident, violations of Ky. Rev. Stat. 216.510 et seq., and for wrongful death of the resident. At the time of each resident’s admission to the nursing home, the resident’s attorney-in-fact executed a written document providing that disputes arising out of the relationship between the resident and the nursing home would be submitted to arbitration. When each case was commenced, the defendant nursing home moved the circuit court to compel the parties to submit the claims to a formal arbitration proceeding. The circuit court denied the motion in each case, concluding that the respective power-of-attorney instruments did not authorize the resident’s attorney-in-fact to waive the resident’s right to access to the courts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) without a clear and convincing manifestation of the principal’s intention to do so, delegation to an agent of the authority to waive a trial by jury is not authorized, and the principal’s assent to the waiver is not validly obtained; and (2) the arbitration agreements in these cases were never validly formed. View "Extendicare Homes, Inc. v. Whisman" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree sexual abuse and first-degree sodomy. Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years. The two jury instructions under which Appellant was convicted directed the jury not to consider a specific event but broadly referred to a five-month period. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that, upon application of Johnson v. Commonwealth, Appellant’s constitutional right to a unanimous verdict was violated because (1) at trial, the instructions given to the jury contained no distinguishing descriptions that would fairly apprise the jury of exactly which criminal episode it was charged to consider; and (2) the error was jurisprudentially intolerable. View "Ruiz v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Richmond Health Facilities-Madison, LP (Richmond Health) and Extendicare, Inc. (Extendicare) alleging wrongful death, nursing-home abuse, and corporate negligence. During discovery, Plaintiff sought the production of documents relating to Richmond Health’s clinical monitoring and oversight and well as documents dealing with corporate finance matters alleged to indicate Extendicare’s negligence in funding Richmond Health. When Richmond Health and Extendicare rejected Plaintiff’s requests, the trial court ordered the co-defendants to produce the documents. The co-defendants separately sought prohibitive writs from the court of appeals, arguing that the documents were privileged and that their financial information was irrelevant. The court of appeals denied the writ petitions. The Supreme Court also affirmed the court of appeals and denied the issuance of a writ, holding that the petitions did not meet the Court’s writ standard and would be nothing more than advisory. View "Richmond Health Facilities-Madison, LP v. Madison Circuit Court" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual abuse and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion for a directed verdict on the sodomy charge; but (2) the trial court erred in admitting testimony from the Commonwealth’s investigating officer regarding the discredited theory of child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome and that a local task force on child sex abuse recommended Appellant’s indictment improperly bolstered the alleged victim’s credibility, resulting in palpable error and manifest injustice. View "King v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree manslaughter. Defendant was sentenced to ten years in prison. On appeal, the court of appeals vacated Defendant’s conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that impermissible trial testimony of a police sergeant constituted palpable error. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ decision and reinstated the judgment of the circuit court, holding that although the sergeant’s contested testimony was impermissible, it did not threaten Defendant’s entitlement to due process of law, as the error was far from palpable. View "Commonwealth v. Rieder" on Justia Law

Employee was employed by Employer for three months as a bulldozer operator. On April 16, 2012, Employee filed a workers’ compensation claim against Employer, alleging cumulative trauma and an injury date of February 7, 2012. Before his employment with Employer, Employee had worked as a bulldozer operated for other employers for approximately thirty years. An administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that Employee sustained cumulative trauma injuries that became manifest on February 7, 2012, while he was employed by Employer, and that he was permanently and totally disabled. The Workers’ Compensation Board vacated and remanded, concluding (1) February 7, 2012 could not be the date of manifestation, and (2) Southern Kentucky Concrete Contractors, Inc. v. Campbell required apportionment of liability based upon the percentage of Employee’s impairment attributable to the three months he worked for Employer. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and reinstated the decision of the ALJ, holding (1) there was a sufficient evidentiary foundation to support the ALJ’s award; (2) the date of manifestation was February 7, 2012, as stipulated by the parties; and (3) Kentucky Southern Concrete was inapplicable. View "Hale v. CDR Operations, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant owned land that was adjoined by Plaintiff’s property. In the course of cutting timber for Defendant, a logger trespassed on Plaintiff’s property and cut and sold a substantial amount of timber on her property. Plaintiff sued for trespass, seeking damages for the missing timber and the damage to the land. The trial court awarded stumpage value and damages but did not award treble damages based on its finding that Defendant had no intent to remove timber from Plaintiff’s property. The court of appeals (1) vacated the circuit court’s ruling on treble damages and remanded for additional findings and further proceedings, and (2) affirmed on Defendant’s cross-appeal. The Supreme Court (1) upheld the court of appeals in its affirming the trial court in the determination that Defendant was liable for damages for trespass; but (2) reversed the court of appeals in determining that Defendant was subject to treble damages, as there was insufficient evidence to prove that Defendant intended to convert Plaintiff’s timber for his own use. View "Penix v. Delong" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon and of being a second-degree persistent felony offender. Appellant was sentenced to twenty years in prison. On appeal, Appellant argued that that his incriminating utterance to police during his arrest should have been suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful search, seizure, and arrest because the policy unlawfully located and identified him during the course of a protective sweep at a Louisville residence, which led to his unlawful arrest and incriminating statement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that suppression of Appellant’s spontaneous utterance was not required because the police officers’ initial entry into the residence was consensual, the scope of the protective sweep was reasonable, the seizure of Appellant was lawful, and Appellant’s incriminating statement was spontaneous and not the product of custodial interrogation. View "Simpson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law