Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendants were convicted in a joint trial of several drug-related crimes. The Supreme Court consolidated Defendants’ appeals and affirmed all convictions for both Defendants with the exception of Defendants’ convictions for possession of a methamphetamine precursor, which the Court vacated because, when coupled with the manufacturing methamphetamine convictions, the possession of a methamphetamine precursor convictions violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. In addition, the Court reversed the trial court’s imposition of court fees and costs against Defendants, as the trial court waived court costs, which precluded the assessment of a public defender fee. Remanded. View "Sevier v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of murdering his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to deny Appellant’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal and did not require unreasonable inferences for the jury to reach a guilt verdict; but (2) the trial court erred in admitting testimony about an unrelated incident involving a used condom, as the evidence was impermissible evidence of other acts under Ky. R. Evid. 404(b) given the Commonwealth’s failure to establish proof of the factual condition necessary to make it relevant, and the error was not harmless. Remanded. View "Southworth v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of second-degree manslaughter and of being a first-degree persistent felony offender. Appellant was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment enhanced to twenty years’ imprisonment due to Appellant’s status as a persistent felony offender. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in phrasing the jury instructions in a manner that unfairly suggested to the jury that it had to acquit on the higher degree of homicide before considering any lesser offense was not eligible for appellate review; and (2) Appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in reading the jury instructions at the beginning of the penalty phase instead of at the conclusion of the proof was not preserved for appellate review. View "Webster v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellee was an inmate when he was allegedly involved in a riot. During an interview with an investigating officer, Appellee requested that three witnesses be questioned who could corroborate his version of events, but the witnesses were not interviewed. After a disciplinary hearing, at which Appellee did not call witnesses or present evidence in his defense, Appellee was disciplined for his participation in the riot. Appellee subsequently filed a petition for declaration of rights in the circuit court, arguing that Appellants violated his due process rights by failing to interview the three purported witnesses and by denying him the right to call witnesses and present evidence in his defense. The trial court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the hearing complied with the minimal requirements of procedural due process as outlined in Wolff v. McDonnell. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the interviewing officer’s failure to interview the requested witnesses did not deprive Appellant of procedural due process as outlined in Wolff; but (2) while Appellee did not have had the right to remain silent or the right to an attorney during his disciplinary hearing, he deserved a new disciplinary hearing because he was erroneously informed that he enjoyed the rights espoused in Miranda. View "White v. Boards-Bey" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of murdering his wife and sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, Appellant alleged, inter alia, that he was entitled to a directed verdict and that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of other acts. The Supreme Court reversed Appellant’s conviction and remanded for further proceedings, holding (1) Appellant was not entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal and therefore may be retried; and (2) the trial court’s admission of the other acts evidence was error under Ky. R. Evid. 404(b) given the Commonwealth’s failure to establish proof of the factual condition necessary to make it relevant, and the error was not harmless and prejudiced Appellant. View "Southworth v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a prison disciplinary hearing, Appellant, a prisoner, was found guilty of committing physical action against another inmate resulting in death or serious physical injury. Appellant subsequently filed a declaration of rights action in circuit court appealing the finding of guilt, contending that his due process rights were violated because the prison’s disciplinary hearing officer refused to allow him to call the victim of the assault and declined to view surveillance camera footage of the incident. The circuit court denied the petition. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) if a prison challenges the denial of a prisoner’s request for a particular witness in a disciplinary proceeding by appealing the discipline imposed, the adjustment officer (AO) must provide for the record on review the AO’s reason for denying the witness; (2) if requested by the prisoner in a disciplinary proceeding an AO must review surveillance footage or similar documentary evidence; and (3) Appellant was found guilty and subject to prison discipline as a result of a process that failed to comport with the minimum requirements of due process. Remanded. View "Ramirez v. Nietzel" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of one count of complicity to murder and one count of first-degree complicity to robbery. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder count and to twenty years on the robbery count. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) the trial court did not err by denying Appellant’s motions for mistrial after the Commonwealth referenced two of the three co-indictees’ guilty pleas in the presence of the jury; (2) the trial court did not err by admitting eighteen jail letters written by Appellant and her co-indictee into evidence; and (3) the trial court did not err by denying Appellant’s motion for a mistrial after the jury briefly accessed inadmissible evidence during deliberations. View "Mayse v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, and assault in the fourth degree, third offense. The trial in this case was trifurcated. During the first phase, the jury convicted Appellant of fourth-degree assault, and during the second phase, the jury convicted Appellant of fourth-degree assault, third offense based on two prior convictions of fourth-degree assault. The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the judgment convicting Appellant of fourth-degree assault, third offense, and vacated the corresponding sentence for that offense, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the charge and that retrial for the charge was precluded under the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because Appellant was not sentenced for the fourth-degree assault conviction, however, the case was remanded for sentencing for that conviction. View "Galloway v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in 1993, Appellant was found guilty of murdering two brothers, Rodney Vaughn and Lynn Vaughn. The trial court sentenced Appellant to death for both murders. In 2013, Appellant filed a motion for post-conviction relief alleging that he was entitled to a new trial based on “newly discovered evidence.” Appellant’s challenge to his convictions was founded upon a report prepared by John Nixon, a forensic expert on firearms and ballistics, who concluded that new information supported Appellant’s version of events, thereby supporting Appellant’s claim that he acted in self-defense in shooting Rodney and that Rodney shot Lynn. The trial court summarily denied Appellant’s motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the “newly discovered evidence” presented by Appellant fell short of the standards that must be met to obtain such relief. View "Foley v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant’s charges in this case stemmed from a search of his residence by his parole officers and local sheriff’s deputies. Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea to manufacturing methamphetamine and being a second-degree persistent felony offender and was sentenced to fifty years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) denying Appellant’s motion to suppress the products of the search of his home, as Appellant consented to the search and there was no indication that the consent was invalid; and (2) denying Appellant’s motion to suppress the results of lab testing on the products of the search, as the lab results were clearly admissible. View "Helphenstine v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law