Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of fleeing and evading in the second-degree, being a felon in possession of a handgun, and being a persistent felony offender in the first-degree. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err by denying Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence found incident to a Terry stop; (2) abused its discretion by imposing limitations upon Appellant’s hybrid counsel arrangement, but the error was harmless; (3) did not err by admitting evidence of other crimes; (4) did not err by permitting the Commonwealth to refer to Appellant’s his post-arrest silence; (5) properly denied Appellant’s motions for a continuance; and (6) did not err by imposing court costs. View "Nunn v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Kentucky Spirit Health Care Plan, Inc. brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that it had a right to terminate its Medicaid managed care contract with the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Finance and Administration Cabinet, without penalty, prior to the contract’s expiration. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment for the Cabinet. Both parties appealed. While the appeals were pending, the circuit court stayed Kentucky’s Spirit’s discovery efforts until the resolution of the appeals. Kentucky Spirit petitioned for a writ prohibiting the circuit court judge from enforcing the order imposing the stay of discovery. The court of appeals granted the writ, determining that the trial court’s suspension of discovery amounted to an indefinite stay on discovery without a pressing need to do so. The Supreme Court vacated the writ and remanded for entry of an order denying Kentucky Spirit’s petition for a writ of prohibition, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by temporarily staying discovery pending the resolution of matters in the appellate courts pertaining to the partial summary judgment. View "Commonwealth v. Hon. Thomas D. Wingate" on Justia Law

Billy Jo Ries gave birth to a daughter who, due to the loss of approximately one-third of her blood during delivery, suffered multiple organ failure and brain damage. The Rieses filed suit against the hospital, the physician who delivered their daughter, and the neonatologist who treated their daughter after her birth, alleging medical negligence. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendants. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence testimony from an expert that was not scientifically reliable under the Daubert standard. The physician appealed, arguing that the court of appeals impermissibly substituted its findings for the trial court’s findings regarding the reliability of the expert testimony and erroneously determined that the error required reversal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting the expert testimony, and if there was error, it was harmless. View "Oliphant v. Ries" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder and first-degree arson. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment for each conviction, to be served concurrently. Before trial, the Commonwealth used seven if its nine peremptory challenges to remove women from the venire. Defendant made a Batson motion challenging the Commonwealth’s use of its peremptory challenges. The trial court concluded that the Commonwealth’s proffered rationales were gender neutral and nonpretextual. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s convictions, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Defendant’s Batson challenge and impermissibly allowed the Commonwealth to use its peremptory challenges to dismiss female jurors on the basis of gender. View "Ross v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a guilty plea to both trafficking in a controlled substance in the second degree (TICS2) and being a persistent felony offender (PFO) in the second degree. The trial court sentenced Defendant to one year imprisonment for the TICS2 charge, which was enhanced to five years by the PFO charge. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the case with directions for the trial court to conduct a new sentencing hearing, holding that section Ky. Rev. Stat. 218A.1413, as amended, prohibited the enhancement of Defendant’s sentence beyond a period of three years. The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals and reinstated the sentence of the circuit court, holding that the circuit court was not statutorily barred from enhancing Defendant’s sentence beyond the three-year cap by virtue of his status as a PFO. View "Commonwealth v. Gamble" on Justia Law

Appellee, an at-will employee of Appellant, a government program focused on rural development, reported to law enforcement officers and Appellant’s representatives that a coworker was allegedly trespassing by making uninvited visits to employees’ homes. The next morning, Appellee was fired for insubordination. Appellee filed suit under Kentucky’s whistleblower statute, claiming that she had been terminated in retaliation for her reporting about the suspected violations of law. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Appellant on the grounds that Appellee’s disclosure of her coworker’s alleged trespass did not touch on a matter of public concern. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the whistleblower statute contained no requirement that reports under the statute must touch upon a matter of public concern. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the whistleblower statute does not require an employee’s report or disclosure to touch on a matter of public concern in order to come within the protections of the statute; but (2) none of the reports and disclosures presented by the facts in this case fit within the protections afforded by the statute. View "Pennyrile Allied Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. Rogers" on Justia Law

Defendant was the subject of two independent cases related to the same victim - one for capital murder and one for capital kidnapping. The convictions in both cases were reversed, and Defendant was retried and again convicted. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s most recent murder conviction and sentence of death. This appeal concerned the parallel kidnapping case, in which, after a retrial, the jury found Defendant guilty of capital kidnapping and other crimes. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death for the kidnapping. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s convictions, holding that evidence of another murder allegedly committed by Defendant and evidence of that murder victim’s background were improperly admitted in this kidnapping case, and the error was prejudicial. View "St. Clair v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of criminal attempt to commit murder, two counts of first-degree robbery, and possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. The Supreme Court reversed and vacated Defendant’s conviction of criminal attempt to commit murder and affirmed the remainder of his convictions, holding (1) the trial court did not err in finding that Defendant’s confession was voluntary and by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress his confession; (2) the trial court erred by admitting Defendant’s redacted confession to the jury, and the improper redaction constituted reversible error; and (3) the jury unanimously convicted Defendant of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. Remanded. View "Sykes v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the attempted murder of his fiancee, of first-degree arson, and of being a second-degree persistent felony offender. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding that the trial court (1) did not deny Defendant the right to present a defense by limiting defense counsel’s questioning of the arson investigator; (2) did not err by admitting evidence that Defendant abused his finacee’s pets; (3) did not err by allowing the prosecutor question witnesses about Defendant’s mental illness, anger problems, and status as a non-native eastern Kentuckian; and (4) erred by admitting improper penalty-phase evidence. View "Stansbury v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of fourteen counts of first-degree unlawful transaction with a minor, fourteen counts of incest, and one count each of use of a minor in a sexual performance, complicity to tampering with a witness, and complicity to tampering with physical evidence. The trial court adopted the jury’s recommendation that Defendant consecutively serve the statutory maximum for each conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the complicity convictions but reversed the remaining convictions, holding that the trial court’s jury instructions, except for those pertaining to Defendant’s complicity charges, denied him a unanimous verdict. Remanded for a retrial. View "Martin v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law