Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for one count of first-degree rape and four counts of first-degree sexual abuse but vacated the trial court's judgment sentencing Defendant to an aggregate sentence of life plus twenty years, holding that Defendant's sentence was unlawful.During sentencing, the jury recommended a sentence of life on the rape conviction and five years on each of the sexual abuse charge running consecutively. The trial court sentenced Defendant in accordance with the jury's recommendation. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) there was no error in the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress; (2) the trial court did not err in admitting other bad acts evidence pursuant to Ky. R. Evid. 404(b); and (3) the sentence of life plus twenty years was unlawful under this Court's holding in Bedell v. Commonwealth, 870 S.W.2d 779 (Ky. 1993). View "Hernandez v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of one count each of murder, receiving stolen property - firearm, and tampering with physical evidence, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on her claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err in admitting testimony that Appellant did not act consistently with someone who truly acted in self-defense; (2) the trial court did not err in denying Appellant's motions for a directed verdict on the murder and tampering with physical evidence charges; (3) the trial court did not err in admitting testimony that Appellant was potentially affiliated with a gang; (4) the Commonwealth's attorney did not commit prosecutorial misconduct; and (5) there was no cumulative error. View "Leavell v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of shoplifting and other charges and sentencing him to forty years in prison consistent with the jury's recommendation, holding that Defendant's sentence violated the aggregate cap on sentences prescribed by Ky. Rev. Stat. 532.110(1)(c).Six months after Defendant was charged for shoplifting from a Walmart he shoplifted from Rural King. Prior to these shoplifting incidents, both stores gave Defendants notice prohibiting him from being present on the premises. Defendant was convicted of two counts of third-degree burglary, two counts of theft by unlawful taking and being a first-degree persistent felony offender. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment in part, holding (1) the trial court erred when it ordered Defendant to serve a sentence that exceeded the maximum aggregate cap delineated in section 532.110(1)(c); (2) the trial court did not err in permitting introduction of evidence of prior instances of shoplifting; and (3) the trial court did not err in permitting the Commonwealth to elicit narration from a certain witness during a video taken by Walmart during trial. View "Kimmel v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for assault in the first-degree but affirmed his convictions of robbery in the first-degree, violating a domestic violence order, and being a persistent felon in the first-degree and his sentence of life imprisonment, holding that a trial court error required reversal in part.On appeal, Defendant raised numerous claims of error, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing certain testimony via Zoom, permitting a witness to testify despite an alleged discovery violation, and failing to grant a directed verdict on the first-degree assault and first-degree robbery charges, and that the Commonwealth committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court erred in permitting a witness to testify via Zoom, requiring reversal of Defendant's first-degree assault conviction; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his remaining allegations of error. View "Campbell v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's judgment ordering McMichael to pay $62,493 in restitution jointly and severally with his co-defendant after he pled guilty to theft by unlawful taking over $500 but less than $10,000, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support the restitution award.Defendant's conviction stemmed from Defendant and his co-defendant removing several pieces of stainless-steel siding from an old diner and selling them for $155.81. In reversing, the court of appeals concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the restitution amount. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no evidence as to the diner's worth at the time of the theft, the diner's worth after the theft, or the value of the recovered stainless-steel, the case must be remanded for a retrial on restitution. View "Commonwealth v. McMichael" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellants' request for post-conviction relief from their murder convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in denying relief.At issue were three post-conviction collateral attack motions seeking to vacate the murder convictions of three appellants (collectively, Appellants). Appellants requested post-conviction relief on the grounds that the combination jury instructions rendered their verdicts non-unanimous. Specifically, Appellants argued that the instructions ran afoul of the unanimity requirement set forth in Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in determining that Ramos did not apply retroactively to these cases and that Appellants' claims were time-barred. View "Halvorsen v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Appellant's convictions for first-degree wanton endangerment and first-degree persistent felony offender and his sentence of seventeen years in prison, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to give a jury instruction on second-degree wanton endangerment.At issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of second-degree wanton endangerment. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding (1) when a defendant has pled not guilty and restricted his defense to disputing the circumstances of the elements of the crime charged, his uncorroborated testimony in support of that defense will generally merit a jury instruction, but there is no bright-line rule that a defendant has to testify, much less that his testimony be corroborated, to received a lesser-included offense instruction; and (2) because Defendant's uncorroborated testimony in this case was evidence in the record that would support a guilt determination on second-degree wanton endangerment, the trial court erred by not giving that instruction to the jury. View "Taylor v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of wanton murder and other crimes and his sentence of thirty years' imprisonment, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Defendant was driving a 2006 Ford Mustang when he t-boned a golf cart that killed the golf cart's passenger. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of wanton murder, first-degree assault, wanton endangerment, operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and operating a motor vehicle without an operator's license. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by (1) excluding evidence for lack of relevance as to additional signage placed in the cart path after the date of the collision; (2) failing to instruct the jury in accordance with its order taking judicial notice; (3) failing to conduct a Daubert hearing before denying Defendant's motion in limine to exclude the testimony of two experts; and (4) did not err by declining to instruct the jury on reckless homicide. View "Pozo-Illas v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court sentencing Defendant to twenty-seven years' imprisonment for his convictions, holding that none of Defendant's claims raised in support of his request for a new trial mandated reversal of his convictions and sentence.Defendant was convicted of murder, four counts of wanton endangerment in the first degree, operating a motor vehicle while under the influence, and failure to give right-of-way to a stopped emergency vehicle. On appeal, Defendant did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the Commonwealth but argued that the trial court made numerous errors with respect to three evidentiary rulings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err in its evidentiary rulings; (2) did not err by denying Defendant's motions to suppress; and (3) erred by forbidding Defendant from using proof of a statement of his, already admitted into evidence, to argue during closing argument that his intent was reckless at most, but the error was harmless. View "Burdette v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals denying Appellant's motion for a writ of mandamus against the circuit court, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.In 1993, Appellant was convicted of 141 counts of first-degree sexual abuse and five counts of first-degree rape. In 2016, a panel of the court of appeals sanctioned Appellant in light of the fact that he had filed more than eighty-four appeals and original actions in an attempt to relitigate his convictions. This matter arose from Appellant's "Notice to Submit Documents to Support Motion for New Trial." After the circuit court denied the submission Appellant filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the circuit court. The court of appeals dismissed the petition as frivolous, relying on its 2016 sanction order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals properly dismissed Appellant's appeal; and (2) the lower courts properly imposed sanctions on Appellant for his history of frivolous and vexatious appeals. View "Violett v. Grise" on Justia Law