Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of one count of complicity to murder and one count of first-degree complicity to robbery. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder count and to twenty years on the robbery count. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) the trial court did not err by denying Appellant’s motions for mistrial after the Commonwealth referenced two of the three co-indictees’ guilty pleas in the presence of the jury; (2) the trial court did not err by admitting eighteen jail letters written by Appellant and her co-indictee into evidence; and (3) the trial court did not err by denying Appellant’s motion for a mistrial after the jury briefly accessed inadmissible evidence during deliberations. View "Mayse v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The City of Lebanon sought to annex several hundred acres of nearby property. The owners of the property subject to the annexation, including Appellees, filed a lawsuit against the City to invalidate the annexation ordinance. The trial court granted Appellees’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that the City, by intentionally manipulating the annexation boundaries to guarantee a successful annexation, violated Appellees’ constitutional rights. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the boundaries of territory to be annexed must be “natural or regular” and that the boundaries of the proposed annexation in this case did not meet this standard. The Supreme Court reversed and declared the annexation valid, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in applying a “natural or regular” standard; and (2) the City’s annexation fully complied the the statutory requirements and did not violate Appellees’ constitutional rights. View "City of Lebanon v. Goodin" on Justia Law

Appellant’s charges in this case stemmed from a search of his residence by his parole officers and local sheriff’s deputies. Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea to manufacturing methamphetamine and being a second-degree persistent felony offender and was sentenced to fifty years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) denying Appellant’s motion to suppress the products of the search of his home, as Appellant consented to the search and there was no indication that the consent was invalid; and (2) denying Appellant’s motion to suppress the results of lab testing on the products of the search, as the lab results were clearly admissible. View "Helphenstine v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of robbery in the first degree and of being a persistent felony offender in the first degree for robbing a cashier clerk at a convenience store at knifepoint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err by allowing three witnesses to identify Appellant as the perpetrator on the store surveillance video and in still shot photos; (2) did not err or violate Appellant’s due process rights by denying Appellant’s motion for a continuance of trial; and (3) did not err by denying Appellant’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. View "Morgan v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree manslaughter, tampering with physical evidence, alcohol intoxication, and criminal trespass. For his crimes, Appellant received a twenty-five-year prison sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction and corresponding sentence, holding that the trial court did not err by (1) denying Appellant’s motion to suppress statements he made during his interrogation at police headquarters; (2) failing to suppress the evidence of subsequent statements made during Appellant’s hospitalization; (3) denying Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence of hair comparisons; and (4) finding Appellant in criminal contempt of court. View "Meskimen v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea to manufacturing methamphetamine and second-degree persistent felony offender status. On appeal, Appellant argued that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the drug-related evidence seized by a state police officer and a parole officer during a warrantless search of his residence while he was a parolee. Specifically, Appellant argued that the warrantless search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the parole officers did not have reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activity. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion to suppress, holding that because the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a police officer from conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee, Appellant had no basis for application of the exclusionary rule. View "Bratcher v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance and carrying a concealed deadly weapon. Appellant appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized upon his arrest. The circuit court and court of appeals both affirmed the district court’s ruling. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Appellant’s motion to suppress, holding that police officers’ search and ultimate seizure of a gun and controlled substances found on Appellant’s person was supported by sufficient cause and thus was a valid search incident to arrest. View "Vega v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of robbery, burglary, unlawful imprisonment, receiving stolen property, and being a persistent felony offender (PFO). Appellant was sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court reversed Appellant’s convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding (1) the trial court erred when it misinformed Appellant that he could not proceed to trial with a hybrid form of representation and therefore denied Appellant his right to represent himself for one pretrial motion while still retaining the services of counsel for the remainder of the proceedings; and (2) because the trial judge misstated the law, reversal and a new trial were necessary. View "Mitchell v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to several crimes, including capital murder. The circuit court sentenced Appellant to death for his six capital crimes and to life imprisonment for rape, kidnapping, and arson. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding, inter alia, that (1) the trial court properly accepted Appellant’s guilty plea; (2) playing Appellant’s videotaped guilty plea colloquy for the jury did not constitute reversible error; (3) the trial court properly denied Appellant’s guilty but mentally ill plea; (4) the jury was properly selected; (5) the trial judge did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to exclude certain photographs; (6) the trial court properly denied Appellant’s motion to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officers and properly permitted the jury to watch his videotaped statement; (7) the jury instructions did not deny Appellant due process or reliable sentencing; and (8) Appellant’s sentences were constitutional, and his death sentences were not arbitrary and disproportionate. View "Dunlap v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellee was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, fleeing or evading police, and being a persistent felony offender. The judgment was affirmed on appeal. Appellee subsequently filed a Ky. R. Crim. P. 11.42 motion seeking relief from the judgment by alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that Appellee was not prejudiced by counsel’s alleged errors. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing, concluding that Appellee’s allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel were not clearly refuted by the record. The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s order, holding that the trial court did not err in denying Appellee’s Rule 11.42 motion without an evidentiary hearing because a hearing was not necessary to determine that Appellee was not prejudiced by any errors of trial counsel regardless of whether those errors amounted to unprofessional performance. View "Commonwealth v. Searight" on Justia Law