Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Petitioners' petitions for writs of mandamus seeking dismissal of their respective criminal indictments for various felony and misdemeanor offenses, holding that Petitioners were not entitled to the writ.In their petitions, Petitioners argued that the circuit court erred in denying their motions to dismiss their indictments on the grounds that the appointment of the Fayette County Attorney as special prosecutor was invalid. The court of appeals denied the writs. On appeal, Petitioners made arguments regarding the distribution of prosecutorial duties and the ability of a county attorney to prosecute cases outside of their judicial district or circuit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioners failed to identify any irreparable harm or injury that would result from the Fayette County Attorney's prosecution of their respective cases. View "Goble v. Mattox" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of four counts of first-degree sexual abuse, incest, and other crimes, holding that the trial court gave duplicitous instructions to the jury in violation of Defendant's right to a unanimous jury and his freedom from the threat of double jeopardy.The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions for attempted rape and sexual abuse and otherwise affirmed his convictions, holding (1) the trial court did not err in amending the indictment to include an attempted-rape charge at trial; (2) Defendant was not entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal on the attempted rape charge or the charge of attempted production of a sexual performance by a minor; (3) the trial court erred by allowing medical experts to testify that the victim had identified Defendant as the perpetrator, but reversal was not warranted; and (4) two of the jury instructions violated Defendant's right to a unanimous verdict. View "Justice v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of sodomy in the first degree, victim under twelve years old, and three counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, victim under twelve years old, holding that Defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced by any alleged error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a directed verdict; (2) the trial court did not err in admitting testimony regarding Defendant's actions; (3) the trial court did not err in concluding that the victim's psychotherapy records did not contain exculpatory evidence; (4) Defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated; and (5) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's motion for a reduced sentence. View "Smith v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree assault and being a second-degree persistent felony offender, holding that any error in the proceedings below did not warrant reversal.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the trial court (1) did not err by denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment based on Defendant's claim of self-defense or defense of others; (2) did not err by admitting certain evidence; (3) did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion for a mistrial; and (4) did not commit palpable error by submitting to the jury documents related to Defendant's prior convictions. View "Wahl v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress evidence found in a drug dog sniff search during a traffic stop of the vehicle in which Defendant was a passenger, holding that the trial court erred by denying the motion to suppress.In reversing the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, the court of appeals concluded that the investigating officer unconstitutionally extended the duration of the traffic stop to accommodate the dog-sniff search. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commonwealth failed to establish that the extension of the traffic stop was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion. View "Commonwealth v. Conner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's conviction and sentence and ordering a new trial, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that a proposed witness was not unavailable pursuant to Ky. R. Evid. 804(a)(5).Defendant was convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine and other offenses and was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court erred in finding that the witness at issue did not qualify as an unavailable witness under Rule 804(a)(5). The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated Defendant's conviction, holding that Defendant did not satisfy his burden of demonstrating that good faith efforts were made to procure the witness' presence at trial either by process or other reasonable means, and therefore, the trial court did not err in determining that the witness was available for trial. View "Commonwealth v. Roark" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the circuit court denying Defendant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) with his application for expungement, holding that the IFP statute applies both to the filing fee and the expungement fee.Defendant pled guilty to felony theft by failure to make the required disposition of property. Defendant later filed an application for expungement. Defendant did not tender a filing fee but instead filed an IFP motion, which would have allowed him to proceed without payment of costs and fees. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the legislature did not intend Ky. Rev. Stat. 453.190 to apply to applications for expungements. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the IFP statute applies to both the $50 filing fee and the $250 expungement fee. View "Jones v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the court of appeals reviewing an appeal from an interlocutory order in a civil action denying immunity under Kentucky's "Stand Your Ground" law, Ky. Rev. Stat. 503.085, holding that the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction.Defendant was indicted on charges of murder and first-degree assault. Defendant moved the trial court to find him immune from prosecution under section 503.085. The circuit court granted Defendant's motion for immunity and ordered that the indictments against him be dismissed with prejudice. Thereafter, Defendant filed motions for judgment on the pleadings in a civil case stemming from the same incident leading to the criminal charges, arguing that collateral estoppel and section 503.085(1) required that he be immune from civil action. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed, finding that collateral estoppel applied. The Supreme Court vacated the opinion below, holding that the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal. View "Childers v. Albright" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's Ky. R. Crim. P. 11.42, 10.02, 60.02, and 60.03 motion for relief, holding that the circuit court did not err in dismissing the claim.After a second trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of complicity to murder, first-degree murder, first-degree robbery, and first-degree burglary. In his motion at issue on appeal, Appellant argued that McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S.Ct. 1500 (2018), governed his claim that his trial attorney conceded guilt against his desire to maintain actual innocence of the charged crimes. The circuit court denied the motion on the grounds that Defendant had already presented this claim and the Supreme Court had ruled on it. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in determining that the claim was both substantively and procedurally improper. View "Epperson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment convicting Defendant of murder, holding that there was no prejudicial error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by granting a partial Fifth Amendment privilege to a witness, overruling his objection to the Commonwealth's closing argument, allowing a detective to narrate videos about which he had no personal knowledge, and denying Defendant the opportunity to recross-examine the detective regarding the testimony he provided during his redirect examination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error requiring reversal of Defendant's convictions. View "McRae v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law