Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of four counts of first-degree assault and other crimes and sentencing him as a first-degree persistent felony offender (PFO) to forty years' imprisonment, holding that any error was harmless.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the trial court (1) did not err when it allowed into evidence a Facebook video from an anonymous tipster allegedly depicting the shooting; (2) did not commit palpable error when it allowed the testimony of Detective O'Daniel, who narrated surveillance video footage; (3) properly allowed Aleisha Courtney's prior identification of Defendant; (4) properly allowed another detective's prior identification of Defendant; (5) improperly excluded evidence of a civil suit by the victims against Defendant, but the error did not likely affect the outcome of the trial; (6) properly allowed Defendant's prior felony convictions at trial and at sentencing; and (7) properly allowed a summary sheet of Defendant's prior convictions that was prepared with certified records. Further, there was sufficient evidence of Defendant's prior felony convictions to support his conviction for possession of a handgun. View "Mattingly v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals vacating and remanding the circuit court's denial of Defendant's motion to modify the terms of his probation to remove a restriction prohibiting him from having access to the internet during his probationary period, holding that Defendant's failure to challenge the probation restriction prohibiting all access to the internet at the time the restriction was imposed was fatal to Defendant's request to relief.In vacating the probation restriction, the court of appeals concluded that the complete ban on internet access under the facts of this case was impermissibly vague and overly burdensome on Defendant's right to free speech. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because Defendant did not object to the restriction, the court of appeals should not have entertained this challenge, and its decision on the merits was in error. View "Commonwealth v. Jennings" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence of twenty years' imprisonment and convictions of not guilty by reason of insanity for first-degree murder, not guilty by reason of insanity for first-degree burglary, guilty but mentally ill of two counts of second-degree assault and guilty but mentally ill of fourth-degree assault, holding that any error was not prejudicial.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the jury’s verdicts were not impermissibly inconsistent; (2) the trial court did not err by failing to grant Defendant's motions for directed verdict; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to provide lesser-included offense instructions to the jury; (4) the trial court's failure to provide the jury with the definition of "dangerous instrument" was harmless error; (5) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion to strike two jurors for cause; and (6) the trial court erred by not making the requisite statutory findings under Ky. Rev. Stat. 703 before admitting prior bad act evidence, but the error was harmless. View "Exantus v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions for first-degree manslaughter, tampering with physical evidence, possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, and second-degree persistent felony offender, holding that Defendant was deprived of his right to counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings.On appeal, Defendant argued that he was denied the right to conflict-free counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings - during an in-chambers hearing the trial court conducted on the fitness and ability of Defendant's private attorney. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the court's decision not to inform Defendant of the Commonwealth's allegations against his private attorney and not offer him the opportunity to retain independent counsel to represent his interests was of constitutional magnitude. View "Downs v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's drug-related convictions, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.After he was arrested and indicted, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized during a traffic stop, arguing that the law enforcement officer impermissibly prolonged the stop to facilitate a dog sniff search. The trial court denied the request. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the actions taken to facilitate the arrest of Defendant's passenger did not impermissibly extend his traffic stop, and therefore, the trial court correctly denied Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence resulting from the subsequent use of the narcotics dog. View "Rhoton v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the ruling of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to classify him as a domestic violence victim pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. 439.3401(5), holding that the evidence was sufficient to satisfy Defendant's burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he was a victim of domestic violence.Defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree for the death of his wife. Defendant moved the trial court to classify him as a domestic violence victim, which would reduce his parole eligibility from eighty-five percent of his sentence to twenty percent of his sentence. The trial court denied the motion, but the court of appeals reversed, concluding that Defendant successfully connected the physical and verbal domestic violence he experienced to the crime he committed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant proved that he was a victim of domestic violence in regard to the manslaughter of his wife. View "Commonwealth v. Crowe" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sixty-five-year sentence for attempted murder, first-degree robbery, and other crimes, holding that the trial court did to err by denying two of Defendant's directed verdict motions and that there was no error in Defendant's sentencing phase.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court committed reversible error when it denied his directed verdict motions for first-degree robbery and first-degree wanton endangerment and that his sentencing phase was unfairly tainted by incorrect information regarding parole eligibility. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) this Court overrules precedent requiring defendants to comply with the "second rule" of preservation; (2) in order to preserve an alleged directed verdict issue for appeal, criminal defendants must move for a directed verdict at the close of the Commonwealth's evidence and renew the directed verdict motion at the close of all evidence; (3) the trial court did not err by denying Defendant's motions for directed verdict; (4) even though testimony by the Commonwealth's sole witness in the sentencing phase regarding first-degree wanton endangerment was clearly false, the error was not palpable; and (5) the Commonwealth's misstatement of parole eligibility during its closing argument did not constitute manifest injustice resulting in palpable error. View "Ray v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court denying Defendant's motion for DNA testing with respect to hair found at the residence of the victims whom Defendant was convicted of murdering, burglarizing, and robbing, holding that the trial court did not err.Defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. This appeal concerned Defendant's motion seeking DNA testing of hair that was found in the victims' home. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed after noting that Defendant's DNA arguments have been raised and rejected by both the Supreme Court and the federal courts, holding that no reasonable probability existed that the DNA testing and analysis would produce exculpatory evidence. View "Hodge v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's conviction for being a convicted felon in possession of a handgun on the grounds that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the court of appeals erred in concluding that the Commonwealth's reasonable suspicion argument was precluded.In his motion to suppress, Defendant argued that the traffic stop in the case was impermissibly prolonged beyond its original purpose and violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court denied the motion without addressing whether the officers had independent reasonable suspicion to extend the stop. The court of appeals reversed, concluding (1) the officers deferred completion of the stop beyond its original purpose for a purpose totally unrelated to the original stop; and (2) the Commonwealth was precluded from arguing reasonable suspicion of criminal activity as a justification for the extension. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the court of appeals (1) correctly held that Defendant's stop was impermissibly extended; but (2) erred in concluding that the Commonwealth's reasonable suspicion argument was precluded. The Court remanded the case to the trial court for additional factual findings and conclusions of law as to the officers' reasonable suspicion. View "Commonwealth v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of wanton murder and four counts of first-degree wanton endangerment, holding that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a directed verdict.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erroneously denied his motions for a directed verdict on the wanton murder and wanton endangerment charges because the evidence was insufficient to establish "aggravated wantonness" and to prove that his conduct caused the victim's death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commonwealth met its burden of persuasion, and therefore, the trial court did not err by denying Defendant's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on the charges. View "Taylor v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law