Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter, second-degree manslaughter, and other crimes. Before final sentencing, Appellant moved to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel and that he relied on erroneous legal advice regarding time served when he entered his guilty plea. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Appellant may have received inaccurate advice from his trial counsel about jail-time credit but that Appellant was not prejudiced by counsel’s mistake. View "Greene v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol (DUI) after being stopped at a police roadblock conducted by the Kentucky State Police (KSP) at a highway intersection. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the evidence leading to Appellant’s conviction was unconstitutionally obtained because the procedures the KSP employed to set up the roadblock failed to comply with the procedures necessary to implement a suspicionless traffic stop. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the KSP did not comply with the factors set forth in Commonwealth v. Buchanon substantially enough to render this roadblock a reasonable seizure performed in the absence of a warrant or individualized suspicion. View "Commonwealth v. Cox" on Justia Law

Appellant was driving her uninsured vehicle when she collided with another vehicle, allegedly causing $3,600 in damages. Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea to the charged offense of Failure of Owner to Maintain Required Insurance. The district court sentenced Appellant to a two-year sentence, conditionally discharged, with “restitution to be determined.” Before the restitution hearing, Appellant appealed. The circuit court dismissed the appeal, concluding that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because there was no final action from the district court. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court was correct in concluding that its appellate jurisdiction was not properly invoked in this case. View "Dillard v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of intentional murder, two counts of assault in the first degree, and one count of wanton endangerment in the first degree. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded Defendant’s plea agreement from evidence in the guilt phase; (2) the inclusion of a “complicity to the act” instruction did not deprive Defendant of a unanimous verdict; (3) the trial court did not err in the intentional murder instructions by failing to include a method by which the victims were killed; (4) the trial court did not err by admitting one victim’s dying declaration; (5) the Commonwealth’s statements during closing argument in the guilt phase did not amount to prosecutorial misconduct; and (6) the trial court did not err by excluding Defendant’s accomplice’s plea agreement during the penalty phase. View "Lewis v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree sexual abuse and first-degree sodomy. Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years. The two jury instructions under which Appellant was convicted directed the jury not to consider a specific event but broadly referred to a five-month period. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that, upon application of Johnson v. Commonwealth, Appellant’s constitutional right to a unanimous verdict was violated because (1) at trial, the instructions given to the jury contained no distinguishing descriptions that would fairly apprise the jury of exactly which criminal episode it was charged to consider; and (2) the error was jurisprudentially intolerable. View "Ruiz v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual abuse and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion for a directed verdict on the sodomy charge; but (2) the trial court erred in admitting testimony from the Commonwealth’s investigating officer regarding the discredited theory of child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome and that a local task force on child sex abuse recommended Appellant’s indictment improperly bolstered the alleged victim’s credibility, resulting in palpable error and manifest injustice. View "King v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

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