Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals concluding that Defendant's sentence must be vacated because the circuit court committed palpable error, holding relief was warranted but that the court improperly reversed Defendant's probation revocation.Defendant pled guilty to two felonies and of being a persistent felony offender in the second degree and was sentenced to a twenty-two term of imprisonment. Defendant filed a motion to vacate, challenging the plea agreement and his conviction and sentence. The court of appeals concluded that the circuit court committed palpable error, warranting resentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) while the court of appeals erred by treating Defendant's appeal as a direct appeal, the court's conclusion that the circuit court committed reversible error was not erroneous; and (2) the court of appeals erred by reversing the circuit court's probation revocation order. View "Commonwealth v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court finding Defendant guilty of first-degree assault and being a persistent felony offender in the first degree, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court committed no error in its application of Marsy's Law by allowing the complaining witness to be present at trial and committed no palpable error by referring to the complaining witness as a "victim"; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses of extreme emotional disturbance and assault in the second degree. View "Cavanaugh v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of driving under the influence (DUI), first offense, holding that a proper application of the four-factor test set forth in Wells v. Commonwealth, 709 S.W.2d 847 (Ky. App. 1986), supported Defendant's conviction.The district court convicted Defendant of DUI, and the circuit court affirmed, relying a certain circumstantial evidence. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the totality of circumstantial evidence supported Defendant's conviction on the sufficiency of the evidence and that the conviction was not clearly unreasonable from the perspective of a rational fact finder. View "Commonwealth v. Woods" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversedvDefendant's convictions for tampering with physical evidence and strangulation, as well as concomitant convictions for persistent felony offender based upon them and a drug paraphernalia conviction but affirmed the conviction for possession of marijuana, holding that errors occurred below requiring reversal.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there was no error in the trial court prohibiting Defendant from inquiring into the victim's rights under Marsy's law; (2) the evidence could not predicate a charge of tampering with evidence under Ky. Rev. Stat. 524.100(1)(a); (3) the trial court erred when it admitted buccal without proper foundation buccal swabs, and the error substantially influenced the jury in determining guilt on the strangulation charge, requiring reversal of the strangulation conviction and the PFO II conviction concomitant with it; and (4) the trial court did not err in refusing to declare a mistrial. View "Saxton v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying two petitions for writs of prohibition in these cases involving allegations of the unconstitutionality of recently-enacted Ky. Rev. Stat. Chapter 202C, holding that the court of appeals did not err.KRS 202C, which went into effect April 2021, created a procedure for indefinite involuntary commitment for incompetent criminal defendants. Petitioners, who were in the midst of KRS 202C proceedings, filed petitions for writs of prohibition requesting relief from the alleged unconstitutional process set out in section 202C. The court of appeals denied relief, concluding that Petitioners had an adequate remedy by way of appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that writ relief was not appropriate. View "G.P. v. Honorable Bisig" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court sentencing Defendant to twenty years in prison in connection with his convictions for three counts of unlawful imprisonment in the first-degree, wanton endangerment in the first-degree, and criminal trespass in the first-degree, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a directed verdict on the charges relating to two victims; (2) Defendant's convictions for first-degree wanton endangerment and first-degree unlawful imprisonment did not violate the on double jeopardy; (3) the trial court did not err in allowing evidence of a prior incident of unlawful imprisonment; and (4) there was no prosecutorial misconduct during the sentencing phase. View "Kelly v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's conviction of one count of tampering with physical evidence and being a persistent felony offender in the second-degree, holding that the trial court should have granted a directed verdict on the tampering charge at the close of the evidence at it was error not to do so.Twice during his trial, Defendant moved for a directed verdict on the tampering charge, arguing that no reasonable juror could find that he concealed the synthetic marijuana leading to his conviction with the requisite intent. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence which a jury could conclude Defendant tampered with physical evidence. View "Commonwealth v. Bell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the circuit court dismissing with prejudice the indictment against Defendant based on the violation of Defendant's right to a speedy trial, holding that the the trial court erred in dismissing with prejudice the case against Defendant.Six months and twenty-three days following Defendant's arrest for first-degree possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia the circuit court dismissed the indictment against Defendant with prejudice, finding that the delay in trying the case had injured Defendant's right to a speedy trial. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the period between Defendant's arrest and the dismissal of his case was not presumptively prejudicial and that the determination that Defendant's speedy-trial rights were violated was premature. View "Commonwealth v. Hensley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's convictions for theft of identity and being a persistent felony offender in the first degree, holding that the court of appeals erred in holding that giving a peace officer false information is not a lesser-included offense of theft of identity.On appeal, the court of appeals concluded that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the misdemeanor offense of giving a peace officer false identifying information as a lesser-included offense to the theft of identity charge and reversed as to that conviction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court acted properly and did not abuse its discretion when it chose not to give jury instructions on a lesser, not-included offense. View "Commonwealth v. Boone" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court sentencing Defendant to twenty years' imprisonment for his convictions of two counts of manslaughter in the second degree, driving under the influence of controlled substances first offense, and persistent felony offender first degree, holding that Defendant's claims of error did not warrant reversal.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court was correct in declining to suppress Defendant's statements statements he made at the accident scene, and suppression of Defendant's blood test was not required in this case; (2) the trial court did not err in excusing a prospective juror for cause; and (3) while certain statements were not properly admissible during the Commonwealth's examination of detective Brandon McPherson, they did not rise to the level of palpable error resulting in manifest injustice. View "Simpson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law