Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Defendant's motion for relief under Ky. R. Crim. P. 22.42 and 10.02 and Ky. R. Civ. P. 60.02 and 60.03, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that Defendant's claim was both substantively and procedurally improper.After a second trial in 1996, Defendant was convicted of two counts of complicity to murder, first-degree robbery and first-degree burglary. In 2018, the Supreme Court denied Defendant's collateral attacks and concluded that the United State's Supreme Court's decision in McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S.Ct. 1500 did not govern Defendant's claim that his trial attorney conceded guilt, against Defendant's express desire to maintain actual innocence. After Defendant filed the motion at issue on appeal, the circuit court denied the motion on the grounds that Defendant had already presented this claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err. View "Epperson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals vacating Defendant's conviction for robbery in the first-degree and complicity to murder and affirmed the trial court, holding that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's Ky. R. Crim. P. (RCr) 11.42 and Ky. R. Civ. P. (CR) 60.02 motions for a new trial.The evidence against Defendant included his codefendant's testimony that Defendant committed the crimes for which he was convicted, as well as expert testimony explaining historical cell site information placing Defendant in the area around the time of the crimes. Defendant's codefendant subsequently recanted his testimony, and Defendant sought a new trial under CR 60.02 and RCA 11.42. The trial court determined that Defendant was not entitled to a new trial under either rule. The court of appeals vacated Defendant's conviction based on the codefendant's recantation of his testimony. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the recanted testimony did not warrant a new trial. View "Commonwealth v. Crumes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court denying a writ of prohibition seeking to prohibit enforcement of the district court's suppression order in this case, holding that the Commonwealth failed to show a great injustice and irreparable harm if its requested writ of prohibition was not granted.At issue was whether the district court erred in suppressing a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) result collected from Defendant, a Spanish-speaking person suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the BAC evidence, arguing that the arresting officer violated the implied consent statute. The Commonwealth subsequently petitioned for a writ of prohibition to prevent enforcement of the suppression order. The court of appeals granted the writ, determining that the statute did not require a suspect to understand the implied consent warning, but only that it must be read to the suspect. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Commonwealth did not meet the threshold requirements for the writ. View "Ortiz v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for two counts of trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree and being a persistent felony offender in the second degree, holding that the trial court did not err in its assessment of court costs.On appeal, Defendant challenged the portion of the judgment ordering him to pay court costs within six months of being released from custody. Specifically, Defendant argued that the trial court exceeded its authority under Ky. Rev. Stat. 23A.205(3) and 534.020 because the statutes require all imposed court costs to be paid at the time of sentencing or within one year thereafter. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error requiring correction. View "Chadwell v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of first-degree assault, attempted murder, and other offenses and sentencing him to a total of thirty-five years' imprisonment, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant was not entitled to a directed verdict on the charge of first-degree burglary; (2) the trial court did not err in finding that a specific mistake of fact instruction would be duplicative of the trial court's proposed instruction; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's request for a self-protection instruction; (4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the jury to view the body camera video from the first officer to arrive on the scene; (5) the trial court did not err in permitting the jury to correct a mistake in form on Verdict Form 8; and (6) the trial court did not err in imposing a thirty-five-year sentence. View "Sutton v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to vacate the judgment convicting her for the murder of her husband, holding that the court of appeals correctly denied Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim but that, as to all other issues, the court of appeals' decision must be reversed.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the court of appeals did not err in denying Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim relating to her trial counsel's failure to object to certain erroneous jury instructions; and (2) the court of appeals' use of the manifest injustice standard of review was improper, and the case must be remanded to undertake a review of Defendant's remaining claims utilizing the proper standard of review. View "Ford v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court sentencing Defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole in connection with his conviction for murder, robbery in the first degree, and tampering with physical evidence, holding that there was no error in the sentence.Defendant entered an open guilty plea to the charges against him and then appealed his sentence. At issue was whether Defendant could subsequently appeal on the grounds that his statutorily-authorized sentence should be reversed because there was inadequate consideration given to mitigation evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant waived his right to appeal his sentence; and (2) even if the trial court's sentencing decision were subject to review, the trial court did not err when sentencing Defendant. View "Hayes v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals reversing the circuit court's order on revocation of probation which ran Defendant's sentence in her Kenton County case sentence consecutive to, rather than concurrent with, her sentence in her Campbell County cases, holding that this case was moot.In 2016, Defendant pled guilty to Kenton Circuit Court to criminal possession of a forged instrument. While still on probation, Defendant committed two additional felonies in Campbell County. The Kenton Circuit Court ultimately revoked Defendant's probation and ordered her incarcerated for three years. The court of appeals reversed, ordering on remand that Defendant's sentences be ordered to run concurrently. The Supreme Court vacated the decision below, holding that the case was moot because Defendant has completed all of her obligations to both Kenton and Campbell Counties. View "Commonwealth v. Collinsworth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the circuit court's order that Defendant forfeit $3,759 in cash that law enforcement officials seized the day Defendant and her co-defendant were arrested, holding that the trial court's forfeiture order was not erroneous.In reversing the forfeiture order, the court of appeals concluded that the Commonwealth failed to establish slight traceability of the funds to drug-trafficking activities. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court did not clearly err in determining that sufficient facts existed to establish slight traceability of the money to drug activity and raising the presumption of forfeiture, and did abuse its discretion in determining that Defendant failed to rebut the statutory presumption of forfeiture. View "Commonwealth v. Doebler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of sodomy in the first degree and rape in the first degree and his sentence of seventeen years' imprisonment, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant sought clarification of the application of the exceptions to Ky. R. Evid. 412's general prohibition of evidence of a sexual nature pertaining to the victim of alleged sexual misconduct under the circumstances of this case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the residual exception of Rule 412(b)(1)(C) is reserved for exceptional and unanticipated circumstances, and because this case presented neither exclusion was appropriate; and (2) the trial court's exclusion of the proffered evidence did not deprive Defendant of his right to present a meaningful defense or constitute a violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. View "Powers v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law