Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained during a traffic stop, holding that the law enforcement officer did not violate Defendant’s right to privacy when he reviewed Defendant’s license and registration information.The officer’s police car in this case was equipped with a camera that could read license plates in order to provide information about the vehicle’s registered owner. The record check performed by the camera indicated that Defendant had an active warrant for failing to appear in court. The officer pulled Defendant’s vehicle over and, after noticing several signs that Defendant was intoxicated, arrested Defendant for, inter alia, driving under the influence. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s rights under the Fourth Amendment were not violated by the officer obtaining information linked to Defendant’s license plate, which was displayed in a place where Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy; and (2) the officer had the articulable and reasonable suspicion required to stop the vehicle. View "Traft v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court sentencing Defendant to life imprisonment for murder, first-degree assault, and other crimes and sentencing Defendant to life imprisonment for murder. The court held (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for change of venue; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to exclude an incriminating statement Defendant made to a witness; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motions for a continuance; (4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing Defendant’s motion to excuse jurors for cause; (5) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s request for a mistrial; and (6) the trial court erred in permitting testimony about what would constitute an appropriate sentence for Defendant, but the error was harmless. View "Hilton v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court sentencing Defendant to life imprisonment for murder, first-degree assault, and other crimes and sentencing Defendant to life imprisonment for murder. The court held (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for change of venue; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to exclude an incriminating statement Defendant made to a witness; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motions for a continuance; (4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing Defendant’s motion to excuse jurors for cause; (5) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s request for a mistrial; and (6) the trial court erred in permitting testimony about what would constitute an appropriate sentence for Defendant, but the error was harmless. View "Hilton v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance over two grams and of being a first-degree persistent felony offender and sentencing Defendant to twenty years’ imprisonment. The court held (1) Defendant was not denied a fair trial by the trial court’s admission of testimony from a detective; (2) Defendant was not entitled to a mistrial because of alleged errors in the sentencing phase of the trial proceeding; (3) there was no palpable error with the sentencing evidence; and (4) contrary to Defendant’s argument on appeal, the jury finding that Defendant was a persistent felony offender first-degree was unanimous. View "Conrad v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of one count of first-degree assault, eleven counts of first-degree criminal abuse, and one count of second-degree assault and sentencing Defendant to seventy years’ imprisonment. The convictions stemmed from the abuse of Defendant’s boyfriend’s minor child, N.V. After Defendant and her boyfriend were arrested, N.V. was released to foster care. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of the foster mother. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the trial court did not err in allowing the testimony of the foster mother. View "Richmond v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court sentencing Defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years for two counts of murder, two counts of first-degree robbery, one count of first-degree wanton endangerment, and one count of terroristic threatening. The court held (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the Commonwealth’s ballistics evidence; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by joining the offenses for trial; (3) the trial court properly permitted a witness to make an in-court identification of Defendant; (4) a detective did not improperly bolster his own credibility by answering questions from co-defendant’s counsel on cross-examination; and (5) the Commonwealth’s use of a CourtNet printout to impeach a witness was not improper. View "Garrett v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of three counts of violating a protective order, kidnapping, two counts of first-degree unlawful imprisonment and other offenses. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by admitting improper character evidence and by failing to grant a directed verdict on the two counts of first-degree unlawful imprisonment. The Supreme Court held (1) evidence of Defendant’s “other crimes, wrongs, or acts” was properly admitted; and (2) this court declines to grant palpable error review of Defendant’s claim that he was entitled to a directed verdict on first-degree unlawful imprisonment. View "Gray v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of trafficking in four or more grams of cocaine. On appeal, Defendant argued that he was improperly convicted because the Commonwealth’s evidence failed to show that the substance seized from him contained four or more grams of pure cocaine. The court of appeals disagreed, holding that Defendant was not entitled to a directed verdict on his trafficking charge because the law does not require proof of the actual weight of pure cocaine to secure a conviction under the first-degree trafficking statute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the plain language of Ky. Rev. Stat. 218A.1412, paired with the definition of “cocaine” in Ky. Rev. Stat. 218A.010(5), creates a statutory scheme whereby the Commonwealth is not required to prove that pure cocaine accounted for the weight of four grams or more; and (2) the trial court did not err in failing to compel disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity. View "Hawkins v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court sentencing him to twenty years’ imprisonment for first-degree robbery, receiving stolen property, and other offenses. The court held (1) the trial court did not err by permitting the victim to make an in-court identification of Defendant; (2) the trial court properly refused to give an instruction for the lesser-included offense of facilitation to first-degree robbery; (3) Defendant’s conviction for receiving stolen property based on a stolen handgun was not manifestly unjust; and (4) the Commonwealth’s questioning of Defendant regarding his violent past did not constitute palpable error. View "Fairley v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals ruling in favor of Appellee in this prison discipline case and reinstated the trial court’s order denying Appellee’s pro se declaration of rights action in which she argued that the disciplinary proceeding violated her Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. Appellee was disciplined as a result of an injury to a Corrections officer after a fight between Plaintiff and another inmate. The circuit court found that Appellee had received due process. The court of appeals remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals, holding that Appellee’s procedural due process rights were not violated. View "Warden v. Lawless" on Justia Law