Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In this appeal addressing the ramifications of Defendant's refusal to take a blood test when he was stopped for driving under the influence (DUI) the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing and remanding this case to the circuit court, holding (1) the trial court properly held that, under Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016), Defendant's refusal to submit to a blood test could not be used to enhance his criminal penalty for DUI and that, under controlling precedent, could not be used as evidence that Defendant was guilty of DUI; but (2) the trial court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to introduce evidence to explain to the jury the lack of scientific evidence as to Defendant's blood alcohol content. View "Commonwealth v. McCarthy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment convicting Defendant of complicity to murder and tampering with physical evidence, holding the trial court did not err in admitting unreacted out-of-court statements in which Defendant's co-defendant incriminated herself and Defendant to a cellmate who testified at trial.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err in ruling that the Confrontation Clause was not implicated because the co-defendant's out-of-court statements to her cellmate were not testimonial and sufficient corroboration otherwise supported the admissibility of the statements; (2) the trial court did not err in admitting a jail phone call of Defendant; and (3) the Commonwealth's Attorney improperly questioned a witness, but the error did not render Defendant's trial fundamentally unfair. View "Fisher v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of one count of theft of mail matter and of being a persistent felony offender in the first degree and sentencing him to twenty years' imprisonment, holding that the circuit court did not err.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for directed verdict; (2) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's request for a lesser jury instruction on theft by unlawful taking under $500; (3) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's Batson challenge to the commonwealth's strike of Juror $4070; (4) any error in the admission of victim impact testimony during the guilt phase of Defendant's trial did not amount to reversible error; and (5) a clerical error in Defendant's judgment did not rise to the level of palpable error. View "Davis v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of murder and sentencing her to life imprisonment, holding that Defendant was not entitled to reversal of her convictions.Defendant was convicted of the murder of her boyfriend. Defendant later moved for a new trial after discovering that a convicted felon had served on the jury. The motion was granted and, after a retrial, Defendant was again convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the only potential error identified on appeal was testimony that arguably crossed over into the realm of victim impact testimony, but to the extent that this was error, it was harmless. View "Hubers v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of two counts of first-degree sexual abuse and two counts of first-degree sodomy and sentencing him to life imprisonment, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the jury instructions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Kentucky or the United States Constitutions; (2) the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of two counts of first-degree sodomy; and (3) Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the Commonwealth's attorney vouching during closing argument for the victim's truthfulness. View "Towe v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of trafficking in a controlled substance (heroin) in the first degree and of being a persistent felony offender in the first degree and sentencing him to twenty years in prison, holding that the circuit court did not err in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court (1) did not err by denying Defendant's pretrial motion to either suppress the evidence from an undercover drug buy or to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction; and (2) properly admitted into evidence better-quality copies of Snapchat messages than the ones provided to Defendant in discovery. View "Pope v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of murder and tampering with physical evidence and sentencing him to forty-three years' imprisonment, holding that the trial court erred in admitting two items of tangible evidence but that this error was not enough to warrant reversal.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of Defendant's time fraud as motivation to murder; (2) admitting into evidence a red knife and latex gloves found in Defendant's truck was error, but those errors were harmless; (3) the trial court did not commit reversible error by denying a missing-evidence instruction; and (4) Defendant was not entitled to a new trial for cumulative error. View "Dooley v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals rejecting the trial court's conclusion that Defendant was not required to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) but nevertheless affirming the judgment, holding that Defendant qualified for lifetime SORA registration for his crimes.Defendant pleaded guilty to three felony counts of distributing child pornography. At sentencing, the trial court found, in contrary to the Commonwealth's argument, that Defendant was not required to become a SORA registrant because his crimes were not sex crimes. The court of appeals affirmed, holding (1) SORA requires those who have committed crimes against minors, such as Defendant, to register; but (2) Defendant's three felony convictions exempted him from SORA because his convictions were each charged as first-offense crimes against a minor and all three convictions arose from a single course of conduct. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant must register under SORA for his lifetime because he was convicted of multiple offenses defined as a crime against a minor. View "Commonwealth v. Daughtery" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of murder, first-degree assault, and first-degree wanton endangerment of a child, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying requested instructions on extreme emotional disturbance and voluntary intoxication; (2) the prosecutor did not improperly reenact Defendant's theory of the shooting during the direct examination of the medical examiner; and (3) the trial court properly applied the law in denying Defendant's motion to suppress. View "Hargroves v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of first-degree and second-degree arson and six counts of attempted murder, of which four were charged as hate crimes, holding that Defendant was denied a fair trial when the Commonwealth, aware of Defendant's intoxication during her arrest, opposed the intoxication defense instructions and implied to the jury that Defendant was not intoxicated.On appeal, Defendant argued that six trial errors required reversal, either individually or cumulatively. The Supreme Court held that the prosecutorial misconduct was flagrant enough to render the trial fundamentally unfair, simultaneously leading the jury to conclude facts contrary to the known facts and depriving Defendant of an ability to present her defense. The Court held that this one error was enough to require reversal but also addressed Defendant's remaining allegations of error, concluding that there were multiple errors in this case. View "Brafman v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law