Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

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