Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was charged with murder. A jury acquitted Appellant on the murder charge but convicted him of first-degree manslaughter. Appellant was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it rejected Appellant’s requested for a “no duty to retreat” jury instruction because Appellant was not entitled to such an instruction; (2) no palpable error occurred in the admission into evidence of Appellant’s prior juvenile adjudication in the penalty phase of trial; and (3) the comity previously accorded by the Supreme Court to Ky. Rev. Stat. 532.055(2)(a)(6) remains unchanged. View "Jackson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of two counts of rape of a minor. The rape resulted in the birth of a child, and a DNA paternity test was used as evidence against Appellant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in allowing the Commonwealth’s DNA expert to testify regarding a fifty percent prior probability of paternity in calculating the final probability of paternity, especially since the expert also testified about lesser prior probabilities; and (2) the expert did not invade the province of the jury by giving testimony that would assist the jury “to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” View "Ivey v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of four crimes, including two counts of first-degree robbery. Defendant was sentenced as a second-degree persistent felony offender to a total sentence of twenty-five years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s belated motion for a continuance; (2) even if the prosecutor violated Moss v. Commonwealth, the violation did not amount to a palpable error; and (3) the penalty phase of trial was not tainted by evidence improperly detailing Defendant’s prior offenses. View "Parker v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Allen Lehmann, a former ordained pastor in the Assembly of God church, was indicted for multiple counts of first-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual abuse. Approximately one month after the indictment issued, the alleged victims filed a civil action against Lehmann and various Assembly of God entities based on essentially the same allegations covered by the indictment. The Commonwealth moved to intervene in the civil action and stay discovery. The trial court granted the Commonwealth’s motion, determining that a stay of civil discovery until the completion of Lehmann’s criminal trial would promote justice and fairness. Lehmann sought a writ of mandamus seeking to have the trial court’s order vacated the civil discovery resumed. The court of appeals declined to issue a writ, concluding that Lehmann failed to prove he was without an adequate appellate remedy and that there was no genuine exigency meriting use of the court’s writ authority. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a writ in this instance was unnecessary, and therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in staying civil discovery pending the completion of Lehmann’s criminal trial. View "Lehmann v. Hon. Susan Gibson" on Justia Law

At issue in this certification request was the correct interpretation of Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 5A(1)(a), 5A(1)(b), and 5B(1)(c), which were promulgated by the Supreme Court with the objective of complying with Section 117 of the Kentucky Constitution requiring that all justices of the Supreme Court and judges of the court of appeals, circuit and district court shall be elected from their respective districts or circuits on a nonpartisan basis. In response to questions of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, the Supreme Court answered (1) under Canon 5A(1)(a), judicial candidates may affiliate themselves as members of a political party without restriction but may not portray themselves as the official nominee of a political party; (2) as applied to this case, hosting events for a political party would violate Canon 5A(1)(b); and (3) Canon 5B(1)(c) prohibits a judge who holds her office by way of a gubernatorial appointment from asserting that she seeks to be re-elected. View "Winter v. Hon. Stephen D. Wolnitzek" on Justia Law

The Council on Developmental Disabilities, Inc. filed a request with the Cabinet for Health and Family Services seeking information about the death of Gary Farris, a ward of the Commonwealth who was transferred from an institution to a community residence shortly before his death. The Cabinet denied the Council’s request, concluding that the records were confidential under Ky. Rev. Stat. 209.140 and that the Council did not qualify as an organization exempt from the confidentiality restrictions in that statute. The trial court upheld the denial. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Council was not entitled to the requested information under either the Kentucky Open Records Act or section 209.140(3). View "Council on Developmental Disabilities, Inc. v. Cabinet for Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

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