Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant was tried on two counts of first-degree sodomy and was convicted of one count. The trial court imposed a sentence of forty-five years incarceration. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) the trial court erred in denying an independent psychological evaluation or competency hearing of the alleged victim; and (2) the hearing conducted by the trial court to determine if various allegations of prior sexual conduct made by the alleged victim were admissible was insufficient, and the trial court erred in ruling that several of the allegations were not demonstrably false without reviewing all of the evidence. View "Perry v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

A jury found Appellant guilty of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and of being a second-degree persistent felony offender. The trial court sentenced Appellant to eighteen years in prison. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of Appellant's spouse under Ky. R. Evid. 504(c)(2)(A), an exception to the spousal testimonial privilege. The Supreme Court affirmed, albeit for different reasons, holding (1) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony based on the Court's interpretation of Rule 504(c)(2)(A); but (2) the trial court's decision to permit the spouse to testify was harmless error. View "Meyers v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant shot and killed Christopher Tolliver. At trial, the defense argued that Appellant was acting under an extreme emotional disturbance (EED) at the time of the shooting. The trial court ruled that Dr. Peter Shilling, who diagnosed Appellant with PTSD, could not testify unless Appellant testified because his testimony would include Appellant's hearsay statements regarding the EED. Appellant ultimately testified in order to offer Dr. Shilling's testimony. The jury rejected Appellant's claim of EED and found him guilty of intentional murder, first-degree fleeing or evading police, and leaving the scene of an accident. On appeal, Appellant argued that his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was violated by the trial court's ruling with respect to Dr. Shilling. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court erred in ruling that Appellant's testimony was required in order to admit Dr. Shilling's testimony; and (2) the error was not harmless. View "Lasure v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

A circuit court jury found Appellant guilty but mentally ill of murder and first-degree assault. Appellant received sentences of life in prison for the murder conviction and twenty years in prison for the assault conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by (1) failing to grant Appellant's motion to dismiss the indictment; (2) instructing the jury that "treatment shall be provided" to a guilty but mentally ill defendant; (3) finding Appellant competent to stand trial; (4) failing to instruct the jury on assault under extreme emotional disturbance; (5) failing to suppress statements made to law enforcement officers; and (6) failing to sever the murder charge from the assault charge. View "Keeling v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant petitioned the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus directing the circuit court to enter an order releasing expert witness funds for an evidentiary hearing regarding his post-conviction ineffective assistance of counsel motion. The court of appeals denied the petition. Appellant appealed, arguing that an expert is necessary to prove that prejudice resulted from his trial counsel's failure to have him evaluated for competency. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' order, holding that Appellant failed to satisfy the threshold requirement of showing a lack of adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise necessary for issuance of a writ. View "Jones v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first degree trafficking in a controlled substance, second or subsequent offense. The circuit court sentenced Appellant to twenty years imprisonment. Appellant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred during the guilt phase of his trial by admitting evidence of other acts of drug trafficking. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) evidence alleging Appellant had committed other acts of drug trafficking was admitted in violation of Ky. R. Evid. 404(b), and the Court could not determine with fair assurance that the error did not substantially sway the verdict; and (2) Appellant waived his right to appellate review of the penalty phase jury instructions. View "Graves v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted discretionary review in two cases to consider related questions concerning the constitutional guarantee to the effective assistance of counsel in light of Padilla v. Kentucky, which held that the guarantee is breached when defense counsel fails to advise his or her noncitizen client that a contemplated guilty plea will subject the client to automatic deportation. The court of appeals held (1) the guarantee is breached when counsel fails to advise her client that the crime to which he is pleading guilty will automatically render him subject to a longer period of parole ineligibility under Kentucky's violent offender statute; and (2) the guarantee is not breached when counsel advises his client of the mandatory sex offender treatment applicable to the crime to which he is pleading but fails to advise him of the effects of that program on parole eligibility. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under Padilla, defendants receive ineffective assistance in cases where the defendant's guilty plea was induced by his attorney's misadvice concerning a collateral consequence of the plea sufficiently punitive, grave, and enmeshed with the plea's direct consequences, and so easily determined from the statutes, as to be deemed like deportation. View "Commonwealth v. Pridham" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of multiple counts of first-degree sexual abuse and sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. On appeal, Appellant challenged the adequacy of the notice of the charges against him, the trial court's failure to grant a directed verdict, and the trial court's attempt to retain jurisdiction to impose court costs and a partial public-defender fee in the future. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's convictions in their entirety but reversed the trial court's decision regarding costs and fees, holding that because the pertinent statutes do not empower the trial court to retain jurisdiction to determine whether Appellant could pay court costs and partial public-defender fees until after Appellant has completed his sentence, the trial court erred in trying to leave its judgment open. Remanded. View "Buster v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellants Marcus Swan and D'Andre Owens were tried and convicted of multiple crimes related to a violent home invasion they carried out in 2008 in which they stole money and threatened to kill the home's inhabitants, two of whom they ultimately shot and one of whom they threatened to rape and sodomize. Appellants raised numerous issues on appeal, some in common and other independently. The Court (1) affirmed Swan's judgment of conviction and sentence in its entirety; and (2) affirmed in part and reversed in part Owens's judgment, although his overall sentence was unaffected, holding (i) the trial court erred in failing to give an instruction on second-degree assault as a lesser-included offense of first-degree assault, and therefore, Ownens's convictions for first-degree assault must be reversed; and (ii) the trial court erred in failing to grant a directed verdict on the charge of first-degree wanton endangerment of one of the victims, and thus this conviction was reversed. View "Swan v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of murder, assault in the first degree, assault in the fourth degree, driving under the influence of intoxicants, and tampering with physical evidence. The trial court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment. Appellant raised sixteen issues on appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in not giving full consideration to Appellant's claim of juror misconduct, which was founded on a question of first impression alleging that jurors may have lied during voir dire and juror bias through the use of social media websites, namely Facebook. Remanded to the circuit court to hold a hearing on whether the jurors answered voir dire questions truthfully, and, if not, the extent of exposure the jurors had to the Facebook account of the victim's mother, and whether that exposure, if any, tainted the jurors to such extent that it was a miscarriage of justice to allow them to participate as jurors in Appellant's trial. View "Sluss v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law