Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree unlawful transaction with a minor in violation of Ky. Rev. Stat. 530.064(1) and sentenced to ten years in prison. The convictions stemmed from Defendant's inducement of the fourteen-year-old daughter of a recently deceased family friend to have sexual intercourse with him. Defendant appealed, arguing that section 530.064 does not apply unless the perpetrator induces the minor to commit a crime. Defendant contended that because the minor involved here was allegedly induced to submit to a crime but not to commit one, Defendant was entitled to a directed verdict on the section 530.064 charge. The court of appeals panel agreed with Defendant's reading of section 530.064 but affirmed his conviction pursuant to Young v. Commonwealth, in which the Supreme Court rejected a claim similar but not identical to Defendant's. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was not entitled to a dismissal of the charge of unlawful transaction with a minor because section 530.064 is not limited to instances where the defendant has induced a minor to commit a crime but applies as well to inducements to engage in sexual activity made illegal by the minor's incapacity to consent to it. View "Hale v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree riot and of being a first-degree persistent felony offender (PFO) and sentenced to twenty years in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's convictions and sentence, holding that the trial court (1) did not violate Appellant's due process rights by replaying witness testimony during the jury's deliberations in Appellant's absence; (2) did not violate Appellant's right to conflict-free counsel by permitting Department of Public Advocacy Attorneys to engage in multiple representation of him and other defendants involved in the same events; (3) did not violate Appellant's speedy trial rights; and (4) did not deny Appellant a fair trial by permitting four of Appellant's witnesses to testify in shackles and prison garb. View "Stacy v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of sodomy against his step-daughter. Defendant appealed, claiming that he was entitled to a mistrial for an alleged Brady violation and that the trial court erred in excusing a juror. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err in denying a mistrial, as the prosecution did not violate Defendant's due process rights by failing to disclose material evidence to the defense in violation of Brady; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in designating the questionable juror as an alternate and excusing him from deliberating in the case. View "Nunley v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a Walgreens Pharmacy and requested Oxycontin. The pharmacist alleged Appellant told him he had a gun. The police subsequently apprehended Appellant, whom they discovered to be highly impaired. A jury subsequently found Appellant guilty of burglary in the first degree. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant appealed, arguing that he was entitled to a direct verdict of acquittal because the Commonwealth failed to prove he remained unlawfully in the Walgreens Pharmacy. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a judgment of not guilty to be entered, holding that the Commonwealth failed to prove the necessary elements of burglary, as Appellant's license to remain in the pharmacy was not explicitly or implicitly revoked the evening of the events at issue. View "Lewis v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of murder and one count of first-degree arson. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions, vacated his sentence, and remanded the matter for a new trial, holding (1) the trial court committed reversible error in denying Defendant's motion to designate a particular juror as an alternate, thus effectively failing to remove the juror from the panel, because the court failed to properly determine whether the juror was, in fact, impartial; and (2) the error was not harmless. View "Jackson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance. The jury that found Defendant guilty of the offense had only eleven members because one of the jurors had broken her ankle during an overnight recess. The court of appeals and remanded for a hearing on whether Defendant had waived his right to a twelve-person jury. The Supreme Court affirmed and declared that Defendant's conviction by a facially unconstitutional jury must be vacated, as (1) a twelve-person jury is a fundamental right in the Commonwealth, and any waiver of that right must be knowingly and voluntarily made by the defendant personally, not by his counsel unilaterally; and (2) where, as in this case, counsel has stipulated to proceeding with less than twelve jurors and the defendant has seemingly acquiesced, the trial should conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine if defendant knowingly and voluntarily consented to that decision. The Court directed that if, after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court finds that Defendant validly waived his right to a twelve-person jury, the judgment of conviction shall be reinstated. Otherwise, the judgment shall stand reversed, with Defendant subject to retrial. View "Commonwealth v. Simmons" on Justia Law

Without a search warrant, police walked onto Appellee's property and into an area near his home late at night to search trash in closed trash containers that had not been put out on the street for trash collection. The containers ended up containing evidence of drug trafficking. The trial court denied suppression of the evidence, concluding that Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the trash cans or their contents. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to all the charges, reserving his right to appeal the suppression question. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Defendant had a constitutionally recognized expectation of privacy in his trash at the time of the searches that required suppression of the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the police retrieved Defendant's trash from the curtilage of his home without a search warrant, the search violated Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, and Defendant was entitled to have the evidence obtained suppressed. View "Commonwealth v. Ousley" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of perjury for lying in a criminal complaint and theft by deception for obtaining the discharge of a vehicle loan by lying to the finance company about whether her name had been forged on the loan documents. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Appellant was not entitled to a directed verdict on the theft charge, as the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; but (2) the trial court erred in preventing Defendant from inquiring upon cross-examination as to the complaining witness's prior convictions for possession of forged instruments and giving police a false name, and because the error preventing Appellant from establishing her defense, disallowing the proof as to the witness's prior dishonest conduct was not harmless. View "Allen v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree fleeing or evading police, fourth-degree assault, possession of marijuana, and being a first-degree persistent felony offender (PFO). Defendant was sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment and was fined $600. On appeal, the Supreme Court (1) reversed Appellant's convictions and sentences for first-degree fleeing or evading and first-degree PFO, as the trial court's jury instructions on the fleeing or evading charge were erroneous; and (2) vacated the portions of Defendant's sentences for fourth-degree assault and possession of marijuana imposing fines, as the trial court erred by imposing fines upon Appellant. View "Wright v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Joshua Peacher and Nereia Allen appealed from judgments of the circuit court following a joint trial in which both were convicted of murder, first-degree assault, and first-degree criminal abuse from their mistreatment of Allen's two-year-old nephew, Christopher, resulting in serious physical injuries and his death. The couple was also convicted of abuse for their mistreatment of Allen's other two-year-old nephew, Wyatt. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgments in both cases, holding (1) both Defendants received a fundamentally fair trial; (2) neither Defendant was entitled to relief because the trial court erred slightly in defining complicity for the jury; (3) Peacher was not entitled to relief because he was tried jointly with Allen; (4) neither Defendant was prejudiced by the jury instructions pertaining to murder and first-degree assault of Christopher; and (5) Allen was not entitled to a directed verdict or to the dismissal of any of the charges against her. View "Peacher v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law