Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions of rape in the first-degree, victim under twelve; sodomy in the first-degree, victim under twelve; sexual abuse in the first-degree, victim under twelve; and incest, holding that Juror A.R. should have been struck for cause.During voir dire, when the Commonwealth asked the venire if anyone was uncomfortable with pornography, Juror A.R. made a physical indication. During a colloquy, the trial court asked several times if Juror A.R. could be fair and impartial. After one final time of asking whether Juror A.R. could remain fair and impartial, Juror A.R. affirmed that she could. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the trial court's failure to strike Juror A.R. for cause was an abuse of discretion. View "Moulder v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of one count of unlawful use of electronic means to induce a minor to engage in sexual or other prohibited activities and six counts of possession of matter portraying a sexual act by a minor, holding that the convictions for possessing child pornography videos must be reversed.The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's four conviction resulting from possessing four videos containing child pornography and otherwise affirmed, holding (1) the trial court abused its discretion under Ky. R. Evid. 403 when it failed to review the child pornography videos before the videos were admitted into evidence and played in full; and (2) there was sufficient evidence proving that Defendant knowingly possessed child pornographic images and videos on his computer, and therefore, the trial court did not err by denying a directed verdict on those charges. View "Carpenter v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions for arson and attempted arson and otherwise affirmed, holding that the trial court erred in failing to grant a directed verdict in Defendant's favor as to the counts for arson in the first degree and attempted arson.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) hearsay statements regarding the victims' fear of Defendant were admissible under Ky. R. Evid. 803(3)'s state-of-mind exception; (2) the trial court did not err in permitting witnesses to invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination; (3) the trial court properly precluded Defendant from presenting an aaltperp defense; (4) the trial court properly admitted physical evidence; (5) Defendant was entitled to a directed verdict on the charges of first-degree arson and attempted first-degree arson; (6) Defendant was not entitled to a directed verdict on the charges for murder; (7) Defendant's burglary convictions did not violate double jeopardy protections; and (8) reversal was not required on grounds of cumulative error. View "Martin v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of first-degree sexual abuse, incest, sodomy, and other offenses and sentencing him to a total of fifty years' imprisonment, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the tampering instruction did not yield a verdict that violated the unanimous jury requirement; (2) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's renewed motion to sever the child pornography charges; (3) the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of adult messaging app communications; and (4) the Commonwealth's comments during closing arguments did not warrant reversal. View "Behrens v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant on nine counts of first-degree sexual abuse for actions perpetrated against K.V., a minor at the time of the abuse, and sentencing him to twenty years in prison, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the prosecutor's closing argument was improper, but it did not constitute flagrant prosecutorial misconduct; (2) the trial court did not err in allowing K.V. to read the printed screenshots of her diary entries from her iPad; (3) the trial court did not commit palpable error in allowing the Commonwealth to question Defendant about K.V.'s credibility; (4) the jury instructions did not violate Defendant's right to a unanimous verdict; and (5) there was no cumulative error. View "Barrett v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of two counts of rape in the first degree and sentencing him to twenty years' imprisonment, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of rape in the first degree and sentenced to twenty years in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not misapply Marsy's Law; (2) the trial court did not err by allowing the Commonwealth to refer to A.C. as the "victim" during trial or by admitting certain testimony; (3) the Commonwealth's attorney did not improperly insert himself as a witness; and (4) there was no cumulative error. View "Robertson v. Kentucky" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's conviction of one count of possession of synthetic drugs, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence recovered from his backpack.In his motion to suppress, Defendant argued that the warrantless search of his backpack violated the Fourth Amendment of the federal constitution and section ten of the state constitution. The circuit court denied the motion, finding that the search of Defendant's backpack was lawful as a search incident to his lawful arrest. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the underlying search was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court properly concluded that the search was a lawful search incident to Defendant's arrest. View "Commonwealth v. Bembury" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of twelve counts of possession of matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor and other sex-related offenses and his total sentence of seventy years in prison, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err by denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the seizure of his cellphone and password because Defendant voluntary consented to the search; and (2) the trial court did not erroneously instruct the jury as to the effect of Ky. Rev. Stat. 532.110(1)(d) on the jury's discretion to recommend consecutive and concurrent sentences. View "Payne v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of two counts of first-degree rape and two counts of first-degree sexual abuse and his sentence of thirty years' imprisonment, holding that the trial court erred in permitting the Commonwealth to present victim impact testimony during the guilt phase of Defendant's trial, and the error affected Defendant's substantial rights.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the admission of testimony about how the alleged sexual assaults affected the victims in the merits phase constituted impermissible victim impact testimony, and this error impacted Defendant's substantial rights, requiring remand for a new trial. View "Alderson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant, following a jury trial, of complicity to attempted murder, complicity to second-degree assault, and tampering with physical evidence and his sentence of twenty years' imprisonment, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant was not entitled to a directed verdict on the complicity to attempted murder charge, the complicity to second-degree assault charge, or the tampering with physical evidence charge; (2) the trial court properly denied a mistrial; (3) Defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on menacing; and (4) the trial court properly excluded irrelevant evidence during the penalty phase. View "Stieritz v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law