Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of theft by unlawful tasking, burglary in the third degree, and being a persistent felony offender in the first degree, and imposing a total sentence of twenty years in prison, holding that the trial court erred in part.The Supreme Court vacated the conviction as a persistent felony offender and remanded this action, holding (1) the instructions given in this case were erroneous because it could not be determined whether the jurors were unanimous in concluding that Defendant committed a single act satisfying the instruction, but the error was not palpable; (2) there was palpable error in Defendant's conviction as a persistent felony offender; and (3) Defendant's motion for directed verdict was properly denied. View "Johnson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the opinion of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction for possession of heroin, holding that the court of appeals erred by affirming the trial court's admission of certain evidence and by affirming the trial court's decision allowing a certain witness to testify.Here, the Supreme Court adopted the reasonable test for determining whether the warrantless search of a parolee's vehicle is constitutionally permissible under the Fourth Amendment, as announced in Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006), and overruled its decision in Bratcher v. Commonwealth, 424 S.W.3d 411 (Ky. 2014) to the extent it held that the conditions of parole imposed by state law are immaterial to the Fourth Amendment analysis. The Court also held that the court of appeals (1) did not err in affirming the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search of his truck; (2) erred by affirming the trial court's admission of evidence of methamphetamine for which Defendant had been acquitted and evidence of marijuana for which he had been found guilty; and (3) erred in affirming the trial court's decision to allow a witness to testify regarding events he did not perceive in real-time. View "Gasaway v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of two counts of trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree, second or greater offense and its sentence of twenty-seven years in prison, holding that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court violated his constitutional right to confront witnesses against him by permitting three witnesses to testify via Zoom and erred by permitting the Commonwealth to join three indictments for trial. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err when it joined the three indictments for trial; and (2) erred when it permitted three witnesses to testify remotely, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "Spalding v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that the trial court acted within its discretion in excluding evidence of a guardianship order in a prior criminal prosecution against Defendant for custodial interference and other related charges, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to apply the proper Ky. R. Evid. 403 analysis.Defendant allegedly broke into a residence where her child lived with the child's father and his girlfriend, assaulted the girlfriend, and fled with the child. Defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude any reference to the guardianship order at issue, asserting that it would be unduly prejudicial. The trial court granted Defendant's motion and excluded the guardianship order. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the trial court erred in determining that evidence in the guardianship order would unduly prejudice Defendant by confusing the jury and that the guardianship evidence was vital to the Commonwealth's case. View "Commonwealth v. Melton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for one count of first-degree rape and four counts of first-degree sexual abuse but vacated the trial court's judgment sentencing Defendant to an aggregate sentence of life plus twenty years, holding that Defendant's sentence was unlawful.During sentencing, the jury recommended a sentence of life on the rape conviction and five years on each of the sexual abuse charge running consecutively. The trial court sentenced Defendant in accordance with the jury's recommendation. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) there was no error in the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress; (2) the trial court did not err in admitting other bad acts evidence pursuant to Ky. R. Evid. 404(b); and (3) the sentence of life plus twenty years was unlawful under this Court's holding in Bedell v. Commonwealth, 870 S.W.2d 779 (Ky. 1993). View "Hernandez v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of one count each of murder, receiving stolen property - firearm, and tampering with physical evidence, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on her claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err in admitting testimony that Appellant did not act consistently with someone who truly acted in self-defense; (2) the trial court did not err in denying Appellant's motions for a directed verdict on the murder and tampering with physical evidence charges; (3) the trial court did not err in admitting testimony that Appellant was potentially affiliated with a gang; (4) the Commonwealth's attorney did not commit prosecutorial misconduct; and (5) there was no cumulative error. View "Leavell v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of shoplifting and other charges and sentencing him to forty years in prison consistent with the jury's recommendation, holding that Defendant's sentence violated the aggregate cap on sentences prescribed by Ky. Rev. Stat. 532.110(1)(c).Six months after Defendant was charged for shoplifting from a Walmart he shoplifted from Rural King. Prior to these shoplifting incidents, both stores gave Defendants notice prohibiting him from being present on the premises. Defendant was convicted of two counts of third-degree burglary, two counts of theft by unlawful taking and being a first-degree persistent felony offender. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment in part, holding (1) the trial court erred when it ordered Defendant to serve a sentence that exceeded the maximum aggregate cap delineated in section 532.110(1)(c); (2) the trial court did not err in permitting introduction of evidence of prior instances of shoplifting; and (3) the trial court did not err in permitting the Commonwealth to elicit narration from a certain witness during a video taken by Walmart during trial. View "Kimmel v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for assault in the first-degree but affirmed his convictions of robbery in the first-degree, violating a domestic violence order, and being a persistent felon in the first-degree and his sentence of life imprisonment, holding that a trial court error required reversal in part.On appeal, Defendant raised numerous claims of error, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing certain testimony via Zoom, permitting a witness to testify despite an alleged discovery violation, and failing to grant a directed verdict on the first-degree assault and first-degree robbery charges, and that the Commonwealth committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court erred in permitting a witness to testify via Zoom, requiring reversal of Defendant's first-degree assault conviction; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his remaining allegations of error. View "Campbell v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's judgment ordering McMichael to pay $62,493 in restitution jointly and severally with his co-defendant after he pled guilty to theft by unlawful taking over $500 but less than $10,000, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support the restitution award.Defendant's conviction stemmed from Defendant and his co-defendant removing several pieces of stainless-steel siding from an old diner and selling them for $155.81. In reversing, the court of appeals concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the restitution amount. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no evidence as to the diner's worth at the time of the theft, the diner's worth after the theft, or the value of the recovered stainless-steel, the case must be remanded for a retrial on restitution. View "Commonwealth v. McMichael" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellants' request for post-conviction relief from their murder convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in denying relief.At issue were three post-conviction collateral attack motions seeking to vacate the murder convictions of three appellants (collectively, Appellants). Appellants requested post-conviction relief on the grounds that the combination jury instructions rendered their verdicts non-unanimous. Specifically, Appellants argued that the instructions ran afoul of the unanimity requirement set forth in Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in determining that Ramos did not apply retroactively to these cases and that Appellants' claims were time-barred. View "Halvorsen v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law