Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance and of being a first-degree persistent felony offender (PFO). Appellant appealed, alleging several errors that were not preserved for appellate review. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, holding (1) Appellant's allegations of error in the jury instructions were foreclosed and not subject to appellate review; (2) the trial court erred in introducing evidence during the penalty phase that included references to prior charges that were dismissed or amended to lesser offenses, but the error was not palpable; and (3) improper statements made during the prosecutor's penalty phase closing argument were not palpable error. View "Martin v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was conviction of wanton murder, three counts of wanton endangerment in the first degree, criminal mischief, and assault in the fourth degree. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, holding (1) Appellant's argument that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to excuse a juror for cause on the basis of a lack of impartiality was unpreserved for appellate review; and (2) the trial court did not err when it denied Appellant's motion for directed verdict as to Appellant's wanton murder and wanton endangerment charges, as it was not unreasonable for the jury to convict Appellant of the charges. View "Hurt v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of trafficking in marijuana over five pounds and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. The court of appeals reversed, holding (1) the trial court erred when it admitted evidence of Appellee's prior bad conduct in violation of Ky. Rev. Stat. 404(b); and (2) the prosecutor improperly misstated the facts during closing arguments. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the admission of the prior bad act evidence was proper; and (2) the prosecutor's misstatement of the evidence in his closing argument was a harmless error because his correction of his misstatement cured any prejudicial effect that might otherwise have arisen. View "Commonwealth v. Tramble" on Justia Law

After law enforcement officers apprehended Defendant's friend, Justin Masengale, Susan Martin identified Masengale as one of two assailants who grabbed her purse and struck her in the face. Masengale was then transported to the police station, where he identified Defendant as the other assailant. Masengale moved to suppress the out-of-court identification by Martin, arguing that it was tainted by pre-identification actions by the police. Defendant joined in Masengale's motion, arguing that Masengale's identification of him was tainted because Martin's identification of Masengale was tainted. The trial court denied the motions to suppress after a hearing at which Martin did not testify. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the trial court did not have sufficient evidence to determine that Martin's out-of-court identification of Masengale was reliable absent Martin's testimony. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court did not err in finding (1) the circumstances surrounding the show-up identification by Martin were unduly suggestive; but (2) Martin's show-up identification of Masengale was reliable. View "Commonwealth v. Parker" on Justia Law

Appellee was indicted for murder for the shooting death of her husband. Appellee admitted that she killed her husband but claimed she was acting in self-defense. The jury acquitted Appellee of the murder charge but found her guilty of the lesser offense of reckless homicide. On appeal, the court of appeals reversed the conviction, determining that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a reckless homicide conviction and that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on that offense. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstate the judgment of the circuit court, holding that the reckless homicide instruction was properly given in this case. View "Commonwealth v. Hasch" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of second-degree burglary and of being a first-degree persistent felony offender. Appellant was sentenced to a total sentence of fifteen years. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction. Appellant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the identification made during a photo lineup and the in-court identification made at trial were impermissible. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in the pre-trial identification procedure or in a witness's identification of the Appellant in trial; and (2) the testimony given about the fingerprints lifted off a piece of evidence was not erroneously admitted. View "Barnes v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with third-degree burglary, first-degree criminal mischief, theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property, and being a persistent felony offender. Defendant requested that he represent himself in the jury trial. The trial court appointed standby counsel for Defendant despite his objection. At trial, the court restricted the range of Defendant's self-representation by barring him from all bench conference and allowed only standby counsel to participate. After the trial, Defendant was convicted and sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment as a persistent felony offender. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court's restriction of standby counsel at bench conferences in lieu of Defendant himself or hybrid counsel violated Defendant's Sixth Amendment rights by leaving Defendant unrepresented at these critical stages in the trial proceeding. View "Allen v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Loretta Glover filed a domestic violence petition alleging that Phillip Sitar had sexually abused Glover's daughter. The trial court subsequently entered emergency protection and domestic violence orders (EPO and DVO) restraining Sitar from having any contact with Glover and her daughter. More than sixty days after entry of the DVO, Sitar filed a Ky. R. Crim. P. 60.02(e) motion asking that the order be declared void for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion, concluding there was sufficient evidence to support the EPO and DVO. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed without addressing the merits of the issues raised by Sitar, holding that Sitar failed to timely file an appeal, and therefore, the issues raised by Sitar were not properly before the court of appeals. View "Sitar v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony incest for having sexual intercourse with his daughter, a minor under the age of twelve. Defendant was sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court issued erroneous jury instructions on his incest charge that denied him a unanimous verdict. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction and sentence, holding (1) an error in the jury instructions deprived Defendant of his right to a unanimous jury verdict; and (2) Defendant's retrial for felony incest was not proscribed by the Double Jeopardy Clause. Remanded. View "Rodriguez v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of anhydrous ammonia in an unapproved container with the intent to use or manufacture methamphetamine, and being a first-degree persistent felony offender. Appellant was sentenced to thirty years in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress evidence obtained by a warrantless search of the house at which Appellant was found carrying methamphetamine precursors, as Appellant lacked sufficient standing to challenge the validity of the warrantless search; and (2) Appellant was not entitled to a directed verdict based on the Commonwealth's failure to disprove entrapment, as no reasonable juror could have concluded that Appellant was entrapped and not guilty of the crimes charged. View "Mackey v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law