Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant plead guilty to three counts each of capital murder, capital kidnapping, tampering with physical evidence, and related convictions. The circuit court sentenced Appellant to death for each of the six capital crimes. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding, inter alia, that (1) the trial court properly accepted Appellant's guilty plea; (2) the trial court did not reversibly err by asking Appellant to admit to the aggravating circumstances; (3) the jury was properly selected; (4) the trial judge's denial of Appellant's motion to recuse was not erroneous; (5) the introduction of certain photographs was proper to explain the circumstances surrounding the crimes and the extent of harm inflicted; (6) the trial court did not err in denying Appellant's motion for a mistrial and change of venue; (7) the instructions to the jury did not deny Appellant due process or reliable sentencing; and (8) Appellant's death sentences were not arbitrary or disproportionate. View "Dunlap v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree manslaughter, leaving the scene of an accident, second-degree assault, fourth-degree assault, and several drug-related offenses. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and resulting sentences, holding, inter alia, (1) the trial court did not err by denying Defendant's motion for directed verdict on the charge of second-degree manslaughter because the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence; (2) the trial court did not err by trying the charges against Defendant in a single trial; (3) the Commonwealth's reference to an inadmissible statement during closing argument did not constitute palpable error; (4) the Commonwealth did not impermissibly use Ky. R. Evid. 404(b) evidence to obtain a conviction; (5) the jury instruction for second-degree assault was not erroneous; (6) the Commonwealth produced sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction for second-degree assault; and (7) no palpable error resulted from the first-responders testifying about their relationship with the victim. View "Doneghy v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree sodomy, tampering with physical evidence, and fourth-degree assault. The court of appeals reversed the sodomy conviction, concluding that the trial court erred in excluding statements the victim made to medical personnel about her history of drug use and addiction. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment insofar as it reversed the sodomy conviction and reinstated that portion of the trial court's judgment, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of the victim's prior drug use because it was highly prejudicial, and the exclusion of the evidence did not violate Defendant's right to present a defense. View "Commonwealth v. Bell" on Justia Law

Defendant and Co-defendant were jointly charged with having neglected and abused Defendant's disabled son. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree assault and first-degree criminal abuse. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) counsel's representation of Defendant was not adversely affected by a conflict of interest because Defendant's counsel worked for the same office as did Co-defendant's counsel; (2) Defendant was lawfully charged with and fairly convicted of first-degree assault; (3) the trial court did not err in instructing the jury with respect to the alleged assault; (4) the trial court did not err in instructing the jury with respect to a lesser included offense of assault; (5) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's pre-trial motion for a continuance; and (6) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion for a mistrial. View "Bartley v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first-degree possession of a controlled substance, possession of marijuana, and of being a second-degree persistent felony offender. Appellant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the drug-related evidence seized during a routine traffic stop because its discovery was the product of a custodial detainment that extended beyond the scope of the original purpose of the traffic stop in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in failing to suppress the illegally obtained drug evidence, as the evidence was discovered after the purpose of the traffic stop had concluded, and no exception applied so as to permit the police officer to extend his encounter with Appellant beyond that time. Remanded. View "Turley v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of complicity to commit murder, first-degree robbery, first-degree burglary, and tampering with physical evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence, holding (1) any error by the trial court in allowing certain testimony into evidence was harmless; (2) the trial court properly decided to try the murder charges in a single trial; (3) the trial court correctly refused to dismiss the tampering with physical evidence charges as unconstitutional; (4) the admission of testimony regarding alleged homosexual conduct between Defendant and his co-conspirator was appropriate; and (5) the trial court did not err by failing to instruct the jury on criminal facilitation to murder and robbery. View "Murray v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant was indicted for the robbery and murder of Caesaro Gomez. Appellant, who was sixteen years old at the time of the crimes, was tried as a youthful offender and found guilty by a circuit court jury of murder, first-degree robbery, and intimidating a participant in the legal process. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion to strike for cause; (2) Appellant's argument regarding the validity of Ky. R. Crim. P. 9.40 was unpreserved for appellate review; and (3) the trial court did not err in sentencing Appellant. View "Grider v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced as a second-degree persistent felon to a twenty-year term of imprisonment for first-degree possession of a controlled substance, firearm enhanced and to a concurrent ten-year term of imprisonment for possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. Defendant appealed, contending that a parole officer's incomplete and inaccurate testimony regarding sentence credits potentially available to parolees rendered the penalty phase of his trial fundamentally unfair. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence, holding that to the extent, if any, that the parole officer's lack of detail about credits against a parolee's sentence could be deemed erroneous, the error was not palpable, and therefore, Defendant was fairly sentenced. View "Cox v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of murder, first-degree wanton endangerment, first-degree criminal mischief, and driving under the influence. Appellant was sentenced to thirty-five years imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the trial court (1) abused its discretion in permitting the Commonwealth to introduce Appellant's entire statement refusing a breathalyzer test, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) did not err by permitting the introduction of an accident scene video; (3) did not err in admitting a 911 recording taken shortly after the collision leading to Appellant's convictions; and (4) may have potentially erred in failing to exclude Appellant's post-collision use of profanity, but any error was harmless. Lastly, the Commonwealth committed a discovery violation by introducing a prior misdemeanor conviction without disclosing to the defense its intent to do so, but the error was not prejudicial. View "Baumia v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a conditional Alford guilty plea to first-degree sexual abuse under Ky. Rev. Stat. 510.110(1)(d) and was sentenced to one year's imprisonment. In accordance with his plea, Appellant admitted he did engage in sexual contact with the complainant but maintained that the act was consensual. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding (1) "lack of consent" was not an element of first-degree sexual abuse under section 510.110(1)(d), and (2) the statute was not vague or overbroad. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) "lack of consent" is an element of first degree sexual abuse under the statute, and it was satisfied by the fact that the complainant was unable to consent; and (2) Appellant lacked standing to make his vagueness and overboard challenges to the statute, and even if he had standing, his arguments would be without merit. View "Stinson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law