Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order of summary judgment determining that a county jail may both retain monies collected from a prisoner and further bill the same prisoner for the cost of his confinement after the charges against him have been dropped, holding that the trial court and court of appeals erred in their interpretation of Ky. Rev. Stat. 441.265.At the time of his release, Appellant owed the Clark County Detention Center (CCDC) $4,009 in fees. Thereafter, the criminal charges against Appellant were dismissed without prejudice. Appellant later filed a class action complaint claiming that section 441.265 did not permit the CCDC to bill him for the cost of his confinement when all charges against him had been dismissed. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the CCDC, concluding that section 441.265 permitted the CCDC to assess the fees and that no provision of the Kentucky Constitution had been violated. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the CCDC violated section 441.265 because the billing and collecting of fees assessed by the CCDC cannot be carried out without the order of a sentencing court. View "Jones v. Clark County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated one of Defendant's convictions on twenty counts of possession of matter portraying the sexual act of a minor, holding that the conviction violated double jeopardy.At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the circuit court erred in denying Defendant's motion for directed verdict on the basis that the Commonwealth failed to prove Defendant knowingly possessed child pornography. The Supreme Court held (1) the Commonwealth produced more than sufficient evidence that Defendant knowingly possessed child pornography on his computer; (2) one of Defendant's convictions was tainted by double jeopardy since it related to an exhibit with the same file name and hash value; and (3) the trial court did not err in granting the Commonwealth's motion to present evidence of uncharged crimes pursuant to Ky. R. Evid. 404(b). View "Bounds v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions on forty counts of possession or viewing of a matter depicting a sexual performance by a minor, seven counts of the use of a minor under sixteen in a sexual performance, and one count of sexual abuse of a minor under twelve, holding that the trial court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to use a great number of unindicted images as Ky. R. Evid. 404(b) evidence.At the end of an investigation, a law enforcement officer found 4,622 images and 1,005 videos of child sexual exploitation material on Defendant's home computer and 925 files of child sexual-exploitation material on Defendant's cell phone. The trial court subsequently convicted Defendant and sentenced him to a total of seventy years' imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argued that any discussion of images not presented to the grand jury and therefore not subject to indictment should not have been allowed by the trial court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant's trial was rendered unfair by the Commonwealth's introduction into evidence a number of inindicted images. View "Minch v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court granting Defendant's motion to suppress evidence, holding that substantial evidence supported the trial court's findings of fact and that the court's conclusions of law were legally sound.In granting Defendant's suppression motion, the trial court concluded that there was no reasonable suspicion that Defendant was involved in criminal activity prior to his stop. Because Defendant's consent to search was obtained after his illegal stop, the Supreme Court held that it was the fruit of that illegal stop. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that Defendant was illegally detained without reasonable suspicion. View "Commonwealth v. Perry" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the traffic stop in this case was extended, and the extension was not justified by reasonable, articulable suspicion.Defendant was charged with first-degree possession of cocaine. Defendant pled not guilty and filed a motion to suppress the evidence of cocaine, claiming that he was illegally detained and the the police did not have a reasonable, articulable suspicion to call for a K-9 unit to come and search the scene. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, concluding that the initial stop was valid. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that no reasonable articulable suspicion existed to permit the K-9 unit search and that the search unconstitutionally extended the traffic stop, in violation of Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. View "Commonwealth v. Clayborne" on Justia Law