Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree manslaughter. Defendant was sentenced to ten years in prison. On appeal, the court of appeals vacated Defendant’s conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that impermissible trial testimony of a police sergeant constituted palpable error. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ decision and reinstated the judgment of the circuit court, holding that although the sergeant’s contested testimony was impermissible, it did not threaten Defendant’s entitlement to due process of law, as the error was far from palpable. View "Commonwealth v. Rieder" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon and of being a second-degree persistent felony offender. Appellant was sentenced to twenty years in prison. On appeal, Appellant argued that that his incriminating utterance to police during his arrest should have been suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful search, seizure, and arrest because the policy unlawfully located and identified him during the course of a protective sweep at a Louisville residence, which led to his unlawful arrest and incriminating statement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that suppression of Appellant’s spontaneous utterance was not required because the police officers’ initial entry into the residence was consensual, the scope of the protective sweep was reasonable, the seizure of Appellant was lawful, and Appellant’s incriminating statement was spontaneous and not the product of custodial interrogation. View "Simpson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of seven counts of first-degree robbery. The trial court sentenced Appellant to a total of twenty-four years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions and corresponding sentences, holding that the trial court (1) did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless global positioning system tracking of a vehicle Appellant drove; (2) did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion for a directed verdict as to some of his charges; and (3) did not err in failing to fully grant Appellant’s motion to sever. View "Thornton v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of murder and was sentenced to forty years in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction, holding (1) Appellant’s responses to the police’s questions at the scene were not properly admitted, but the error was harmless; (2) the introduction of hearsay content of the testimony of one of Appellant’s cellmates that Appellant allegedly had with another cellmate was error, but the error was not reversible; (3) the prosecutor, by introducing his own interaction with the cellmate in an attempt to impeach that witness, was error, but the error was not palpable; (4) the trial court erred in allowing the victim’s niece to repeat the victim’s statement of why she not longer had a gun, but the error was harmless; and (5) statements about the victim’s plan to move to Indiana were properly admitted. View "Dillon v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of criminal attempt to commit murder and first-degree criminal assault. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed Appellant’s conviction and sentence for attempted murder and reversed and vacated Appellant’s conviction and sentence for the lesser offense of first-degree assault, holding that both convictions violated statutory restraints on double jeopardy; (2) concluded that the trial court did not err in showing to the jury a news reporter’s interview with Appellant; and (3) affirmed the trial court’s order imposing court costs and an arrest fee but vacated the imposition of a partial attorney’s fee. Remanded. View "Spicer v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant was taken into custody after a warrantless search of his vehicle. Defendant was subsequently indicted for handgun- and drug-related offenses. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence recovered from his vehicle. The court of appeals vacated the circuit court’s order suppressing the evidence, concluding (1) the Commonwealth’s appeal was timely filed; and (2) although the search was unlawful, the exclusionary rule did not require suppression because the police officer who searched Defendant’s car followed existing precedent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Commonwealth’s notice of appeal was timely filed; and (2) the search in this case was unconstitutional under Arizona v. Gant and Rose v. Commonwealth, but because the search was conducted by an officer in objectively reasonable reliance on clearly established precedent, the exclusionary rule did not apply to exclude the contraband discovered in Defendant’s vehicle. View "Parker v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of the murder and repeated sexual assault of his girlfriend. On appeal, Appellant argued, among other things, that the evidence against him, particularly the contents of his cell phone depicting him sexually assaulting his girlfriend, should have been suppressed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) refusing to suppress evidence against Appellant, including the videos found on his cell phone; (2) refusing to sever the charges for the sexual assaults on January 15 from those for the sexual assaults and murder on January 16; and (3) ruling that recorded statements of the victim’s children regarding their mother’s purported assailant could not be introduced at trial. View "Hedgepath v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Patrick Darcy and his codefendant, Randy McCleery, Jr., were separately indicted for crimes arising out of the burglary of a residence but were scheduled to be jointly tried. Twelve days before the scheduled trial date, private counsel filed a motion seeking a continuance to enable him to substitute his services for those of the Department of Public Advocacy (DPA), who represented Darcy at all pre-trial proceedings. Darcy’s motion was denied in order to protect McCleery’s statutory right to a speedy trial. After a trial with the DPA continuing to represent Darcy, Darcy was convicted of first-degree burglary, first-degree fleeing or evading the police, and theft by unlawful taking of property. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a continuance of a joint trial requested by a defendant, so long as it is reasonable, is included within the “elastic” clause of Ky. Rev. Stat. 500.110, thus allowing the extension of the statutory speedy-trial time period; and (2) the trial court in this case erred by denying Darcy’s motion for a continuance because its action was based on a seeming misinterpretation of section 500.110. View "Darcy v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of burglary, three counts of theft by unlawful taking of a firearm, one count of theft by unlawful taking of property having a value of $500 or more, and of being a persistent felony offender in the first degree. Defendant was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court abused its discretion in allowing admission of detailed evidence of Defendant’s past domestic violence, as the evidence became an expose of Defendant’s extensive domestic misconduct, and the probative value of the evidence was clearly outweighed by its prejudicial nature; (2) Defendant’s convictions on the three separate counts of theft by unlawful taking of a firearm violated Defendant’s double jeopardy rights; and (3) the evidence was not sufficient to support the first-degree burglary conviction. View "Wilson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but remanded for a new sentencing trial. After a retrial, the jury again returned a death-penalty verdict. Appellant was sentenced in accordance with that verdict. Appellant appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial and his death sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s murder conviction, to the extent it was challenged on appeal, and sentence of death, holding that (1) Appellant’s claims of error were either without merit or did not require reversal; and (2) the jury’s verdict was factually substantiated, and the sentence was valid. View "St. Clair v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law