Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of wanton murder and initially sentenced to forty years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court vacated Appellant's sentence and remanded for a new sentencing phase. At Appellant's second sentencing phase trial, Appellant was represented by a public advocacy attorney that had represented Chris Eapmon, who had been jointly indicted with Appellant during his negotiations for a plea deal. Eapmon eventually pled guilty in exchange for his testimony against Appellant. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's twenty-eight year prison sentence, holding (1) Appellant did not suffer any identifiable prejudice arising out of counsel's representation; (2) the successive representation here did not violate Ky. R. Crim. P. 8.30; and (3) Appellant's confrontation rights were not violated at his second sentencing phase due to the use of videotaped testimony from the guilt phase of his trial. View "Steward v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to armed robbery and murder and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years. After Defendant's conviction was affirmed, Defendant filed a pro se motion seeking relief from the circuit court's judgment. The matter was allowed to lie dormant for four years until counsel filed an amendment to Defendant's original motion. The trial court denied the motion, finding that counsel's amendment was untimely and that on the merits the claims in Defendant's original motion were refuted by the record. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, although its reasoning differed from the lower court's, holding that to the extent the amended motion sought to raise a new, factually independent claim, it was subject to dismissal as untimely, and Defendant's timely claims were facially without merit. View "Roach v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to forty years in prison. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court erred when it allowed into evidence the fact that Appellant owned two guns with the same model number as the weapon used in the murder crime, though neither weapon was used to commit the crime, but the error was harmless; (2) the trial court erred when it admitted hearsay testimony regarding the victim's request to borrow money from his wife, but the error was harmless in the context of this case; and (3) the trial court properly refused to allow Appellant to inform the jury he had already been tried twice for these charges and the prior two juries deadlocked. View "Harris v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellee was charged with assault in the fourth degree. Before Appellee was arrested but after an arrest warrant was issued, Appellee's attorney made an ex parte request to a different district court judge from the one who issued the arrest warrant, seeking to set the warrant aside and issue a summons. The warrant was withdrawn and a summons issued instead. The Commonwealth's request for the reinstatement of the arrest warrant was denied. Appellee later pled guilty to the charge. The Supreme Court granted the certification request of the Commonwealth to answer a question of law and answered that Kentucky law does not authorize an ex parte motion by a criminal defendant to vacate or set aside a warrant for his or her arrest with no notice or opportunity for the Commonwealth to be heard. View "Commonwealth v. Minton" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for being a persistent felony offender (PFO) 2. The PFO 2 count was based on an earlier conviction for which Defendant was granted diversion. Defendant was still on diversion when the grand jury indicted him for the later offenses. Upon Defendant's motion, the trial court dismissed the PFO 2 count because Defendant had not been finally sentenced on the previously diverted felony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a conviction for which a defendant is currently on diversion cannot be used to indict that defendant as a PFO 2 when he commits a subsequent felony offense; and (2) the sentence on the prior felony must be imposed at the time the defendant commits the subsequent crime in order for the conviction to support a PFO 2 charge. View "Commonwealth v. Derringer" on Justia Law

A circuit court jury found Appellant guilty of two counts of attempted murder and one count of being a first-degree persistent felony offender (PFO). For these crimes, Appellant received a fifty-year prison sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing testimony identifying Appellant as a former inmate to be presented to the jury; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing evidence that he threatened a prison guard during apprehension to be presented to the jury; (3) the Commonwealth impermissibly exceeded the scope of Ky. Rev. Stat. 532.055 when it told the jury about Appellant's prior convictions, and accordingly, the Court vacated Appellant's sentence and remanded for a new penalty phase; and (4) the trial court did not err in denying Appellant's motion for a directed verdict on the PFO charge. View "Webb v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed from a judgment of the circuit court convicting him of attempted murder, two counts of first-degree assault, one count of first-degree wanton endangerment, and of being a first-degree persistent felony offender. The Supreme Court reversed Appellant's conviction for first-degree assault, holding (1) in light of the particular facts of this case, Appellant's convictions for both attempted murder and first-degree assault for the same shooting resulted in a double jeopardy violation; and (2) none of Appellant's remaining arguments alleging prosecutorial misconduct established reversible error. Remanded for entry of a new judgment that excluded the reversed conviction. View "Kiper v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

A circuit court jury found Appellant guilty of murder, first-degree wanton endangerment, first-degree criminal mischief, and driving under the influence. For these crimes, Appellant received a thirty-five year prison sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's conviction and sentence, holding (1) the trial court abused its discretion when allowing the introduction of Appellant's pre-arrest silence during the Commonwealth's case-in-chief, but the error was harmless; (2) the trial court did not err in permitting the introduction of an accident scene video; (3) the trial court properly admitted a 911 recording; (4) any potential error that arose out of the admission of Appellant's post-collision use of profanity was harmless; and (5) the trial court did not commit palpable error in permitting the introduction of Appellant's misdemeanor theft by deception conviction during the sentencing phase of her trial. View "Baumia v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

A circuit court jury found Appellant guilty of first-degree fleeing or evading police, fourth-degree assault, possession of marijuana, and being a first-degree persistent felony offender (PFO). The trial court imposed a sentence of twenty years' imprisonment and fined Appellant $600. The Supreme Court (1) reversed Appellant's convictions and sentences for first-degree fleeing or evading and first-degree PFO, holding that the trial court's jury instruction on the fleeing or evading charge were erroneous; and (2) held that the trial court erred by imposing fines upon Appellant after previously finding him to be indigent and therefore vacated those portions of his sentences imposing fines. View "Wright v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court accepted review of this case to consider how to interpret Kentucky's grandparent-visitation statute consistently with the constitutional principles articulated in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision, Troxel v. Granville, and whether the trial court in this case appropriately interceded to grant the grandmother visitation with the child despite the objection of the child's mother. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's grant, holding (1) a grandparent petitioning for child visitation contrary to the wishes of the child's parent can overcome the presumption that a fit parent is presumed to act in the best interest of the child only with clear and convincing evidence that granting visitation to the grandparent is in the child's best interest; and (2) the trial court here, in granting visitation to the grandmother, relied on pre-Troxel case law that inappropriately placed grandparents on equal footing with parents when determining visitation. Remanded. View "Walker v. Blair" on Justia Law