Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the circuit court in this criminal case, holding that the case must be remanded for the trial court to consider whether Defendant's consent to a blood draw was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.Defendant entered a conditional plea to one count of manslaughter in the first degree and one count of manslaughter in the second degree. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding that the trial court (1) did not err by failing to suppress Defendant's statements obtained without a Miranda warning; (2) erred in suppressing the results of Defendant's blood draw without determining whether her consent was voluntary where she received a warning that if she refused the blood test and were convicted of DUI, her mandatory minimum jail sentence would be doubled; and (3) did not err by failing to dismiss the case due to alleged abuse of the grand jury process. View "Haney v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant's motion for a writ of mandamus against the circuit court, holding that the court of appeals properly dismissed the appeal.In 1993, Defendant was convicted of 141 counts of first-degree sexual abuse and five counts of first-degree rape and sentenced to 754 years' imprisonment. The current matter arose from the trial court's denial of Defendant's pro se "Notice to Submit Documents to Support Motion for New Trial." Defendant requested a writ of mandamus challenging the denial. The court of appeals dismissed the petition as frivolous. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant did not timely appeal the denial of his motion for a new trial dismissal was the prescribed sanction. View "Violett v. Honorable Grise" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of burglary in the first degree, rape in the first degree, kidnapping, violation of an EPO/DVO, and terroristic threatening, holding that the trial court erred in imposing Defendant's sentence.During penalty phase deliberations, Juror 8 informed the bailiff that she no longer wanted to deliberate. The judge excused the juror and told Defendant he could either waive his right to a twelve-person jury and allow an eleven-person jury to decide his sentence or allow the judge to make the sentencing decision. Defendant objected to eleven jurors, and so the judge decided the sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions but vacated his sentence, holding the trial court erred by failing to conduct a sufficiently searching inquiry to determine Juror 8's potential inability to be fair or impartial and then by excusing the juror. The Court remanded the case for a new penalty phase. View "Jerome v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the opinion of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court finding Primal Vantage Company, Inc. liable for failure to warn and to instruct of the dangers associated with certain polypropylene straps and awarding substantial damages to Kevin and Sante O'Bryan, holding that the trial court abused its discretion.While Kevin was using a ladder stand manufactured by Primal Vantage that must be affixed to a tree to be used for hunting, the polypropylene straps securing the stand to the tree broke. The stand fell, resulting in Kevin sustaining serious injuries. A jury found Primal Vantage liable and awarded both Kevin and his wife damages. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the trial court erred by abandoning its role as evidentiary gatekeeper and allowing the jury to hear substantial evidence regarding other injuries and accidents involving ladderstands, then declaring the evidence inadmissible, and failing to admonish the jury not to consider the inadmissible other-incidents evidence. View "Primal Vantage Co. v. O'Bryan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of first-degree sodomy and sentencing him to twenty years in prison, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in failing to remove two jurors for cause during voir dire and committed a reversible error by allowing the Commonwealth to make an improper assertion about him during closing arguments. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to strike the jurors was not an abuse of discretion; and (2) the prosecutor's statements during closing arguments were not reversible error. View "Robinson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of one count of second-degree rape, one count of third-degree rape, and two counts of incest, holding that there was no reversible error.On appeal, Defendant argued that his trial court should have been severed from his wife's trial, that his wife's counsel improperly made statements against his interest in closing arguments, that the jury instructions violated his right to a unanimous jury verdict, and that certain evidence at trial was improperly admitted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his allegations of error. View "Sexton v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the circuit court denying Defendant's motion seeking reconsideration of probation pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. 640.075(4), holding that the provisions of Ky. Rev. Stat. 532.045 apply to render a juvenile convicted as a youthful offender of sexual offenses ineligible for probation.When he was a juvenile, Defendant was charged with multiple sex offenses and transferred to the circuit court as a youthful offender. Defendant was convicted. Shortly before he turned twenty-one, Defendant filed his motion to reconsider probation. The circuit court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 532.045 applies to youthful offenders such as Defendant. View "Bloyer v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to suppress location data obtained from the police's search of his real-time cell-site location information (CSLI) and the evidence obtained from the search, holding that suppression was required.Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of first-degree robbery, one count of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, and one count of receiving stolen property. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress because the police's acquisition of Defendant's real-time CSLI constituted a warrantless, unreasonable search. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the officers illegally obtained Defendant's real-time CSLI and that the evidence obtained therefrom should be excluded from evidence. View "Commonwealth v. Reed" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's Ky. R. Crim. P. 11.42, Ky R. Crim. P. 10.02, Ky. R. Civ. P. 60.02, and Ky. R. Civ. P. 60.03 motion for relief, holding that the circuit court did not err.Appellant was convicted of two counts of complicity to murder and other crimes and sentenced to death. In the instant motion, Appellant argued that McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S.Ct. 1500 (2018), governed his claim that his defense counsel provided ineffective assistance. The circuit court denied the motion, determining that the claim was both substantively and procedurally improper. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the circuit court's denial of relief. View "Epperson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court finding Defendant guilty of two counts of murder and four counts of wanton endangerment in the first degree and sentencing him to life in prison without the possibility of parole, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.In 2012, a jury found Defendant guilty but mentally ill of murder and wanton endangerment. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. On remand, the main issue at trial was Defendant's affirmative defense of insanity or, in the alternative, extreme emotional disturbance. A jury found Defendant guilty of the crimes and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding Defendant's claims on appeal were without merit. View "Hall v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law