Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court sentencing Defendant to twenty-seven years' imprisonment for his convictions, holding that none of Defendant's claims raised in support of his request for a new trial mandated reversal of his convictions and sentence.Defendant was convicted of murder, four counts of wanton endangerment in the first degree, operating a motor vehicle while under the influence, and failure to give right-of-way to a stopped emergency vehicle. On appeal, Defendant did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the Commonwealth but argued that the trial court made numerous errors with respect to three evidentiary rulings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err in its evidentiary rulings; (2) did not err by denying Defendant's motions to suppress; and (3) erred by forbidding Defendant from using proof of a statement of his, already admitted into evidence, to argue during closing argument that his intent was reckless at most, but the error was harmless. View "Burdette v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals denying Appellant's motion for a writ of mandamus against the circuit court, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.In 1993, Appellant was convicted of 141 counts of first-degree sexual abuse and five counts of first-degree rape. In 2016, a panel of the court of appeals sanctioned Appellant in light of the fact that he had filed more than eighty-four appeals and original actions in an attempt to relitigate his convictions. This matter arose from Appellant's "Notice to Submit Documents to Support Motion for New Trial." After the circuit court denied the submission Appellant filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the circuit court. The court of appeals dismissed the petition as frivolous, relying on its 2016 sanction order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals properly dismissed Appellant's appeal; and (2) the lower courts properly imposed sanctions on Appellant for his history of frivolous and vexatious appeals. View "Violett v. Grise" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals concluding that Defendant's sentence must be vacated because the circuit court committed palpable error, holding relief was warranted but that the court improperly reversed Defendant's probation revocation.Defendant pled guilty to two felonies and of being a persistent felony offender in the second degree and was sentenced to a twenty-two term of imprisonment. Defendant filed a motion to vacate, challenging the plea agreement and his conviction and sentence. The court of appeals concluded that the circuit court committed palpable error, warranting resentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) while the court of appeals erred by treating Defendant's appeal as a direct appeal, the court's conclusion that the circuit court committed reversible error was not erroneous; and (2) the court of appeals erred by reversing the circuit court's probation revocation order. View "Commonwealth v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court finding Defendant guilty of first-degree assault and being a persistent felony offender in the first degree, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court committed no error in its application of Marsy's Law by allowing the complaining witness to be present at trial and committed no palpable error by referring to the complaining witness as a "victim"; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses of extreme emotional disturbance and assault in the second degree. View "Cavanaugh v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of driving under the influence (DUI), first offense, holding that a proper application of the four-factor test set forth in Wells v. Commonwealth, 709 S.W.2d 847 (Ky. App. 1986), supported Defendant's conviction.The district court convicted Defendant of DUI, and the circuit court affirmed, relying a certain circumstantial evidence. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the totality of circumstantial evidence supported Defendant's conviction on the sufficiency of the evidence and that the conviction was not clearly unreasonable from the perspective of a rational fact finder. View "Commonwealth v. Woods" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversedvDefendant's convictions for tampering with physical evidence and strangulation, as well as concomitant convictions for persistent felony offender based upon them and a drug paraphernalia conviction but affirmed the conviction for possession of marijuana, holding that errors occurred below requiring reversal.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there was no error in the trial court prohibiting Defendant from inquiring into the victim's rights under Marsy's law; (2) the evidence could not predicate a charge of tampering with evidence under Ky. Rev. Stat. 524.100(1)(a); (3) the trial court erred when it admitted buccal without proper foundation buccal swabs, and the error substantially influenced the jury in determining guilt on the strangulation charge, requiring reversal of the strangulation conviction and the PFO II conviction concomitant with it; and (4) the trial court did not err in refusing to declare a mistrial. View "Saxton v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying two petitions for writs of prohibition in these cases involving allegations of the unconstitutionality of recently-enacted Ky. Rev. Stat. Chapter 202C, holding that the court of appeals did not err.KRS 202C, which went into effect April 2021, created a procedure for indefinite involuntary commitment for incompetent criminal defendants. Petitioners, who were in the midst of KRS 202C proceedings, filed petitions for writs of prohibition requesting relief from the alleged unconstitutional process set out in section 202C. The court of appeals denied relief, concluding that Petitioners had an adequate remedy by way of appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that writ relief was not appropriate. View "G.P. v. Honorable Bisig" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court sentencing Defendant to twenty years in prison in connection with his convictions for three counts of unlawful imprisonment in the first-degree, wanton endangerment in the first-degree, and criminal trespass in the first-degree, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a directed verdict on the charges relating to two victims; (2) Defendant's convictions for first-degree wanton endangerment and first-degree unlawful imprisonment did not violate the on double jeopardy; (3) the trial court did not err in allowing evidence of a prior incident of unlawful imprisonment; and (4) there was no prosecutorial misconduct during the sentencing phase. View "Kelly v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's conviction of one count of tampering with physical evidence and being a persistent felony offender in the second-degree, holding that the trial court should have granted a directed verdict on the tampering charge at the close of the evidence at it was error not to do so.Twice during his trial, Defendant moved for a directed verdict on the tampering charge, arguing that no reasonable juror could find that he concealed the synthetic marijuana leading to his conviction with the requisite intent. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence which a jury could conclude Defendant tampered with physical evidence. View "Commonwealth v. Bell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the circuit court dismissing with prejudice the indictment against Defendant based on the violation of Defendant's right to a speedy trial, holding that the the trial court erred in dismissing with prejudice the case against Defendant.Six months and twenty-three days following Defendant's arrest for first-degree possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia the circuit court dismissed the indictment against Defendant with prejudice, finding that the delay in trying the case had injured Defendant's right to a speedy trial. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the period between Defendant's arrest and the dismissal of his case was not presumptively prejudicial and that the determination that Defendant's speedy-trial rights were violated was premature. View "Commonwealth v. Hensley" on Justia Law