| Towe v. Commonwealth |
| Docket: 2019-SC-0694-MR Opinion Date: February 18, 2021 Judge: John D. Minton, Jr. Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of two counts of first-degree sexual abuse and two counts of first-degree sodomy and sentencing him to life imprisonment, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the jury instructions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Kentucky or the United States Constitutions; (2) the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of two counts of first-degree sodomy; and (3) Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the Commonwealth's attorney vouching during closing argument for the victim's truthfulness. |
| |
| Barnett v. Central Kentucky Hauling, LLC |
| Docket: 2019-SC-0064-DG Opinion Date: February 18, 2021 Judge: John D. Minton, Jr. Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Labor & Employment Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court dismissing this complaint brought under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act (KCRA), Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 344, holding that the KCRA does not bar an employe from discharging an employee because of the disability of an individual with whom the employee associates. After Employer terminated Employee's employment for lack of work Employee sued, alleging that his firing violated the KCRA. Specifically, Employee claimed that Employer discriminated against him for his association with his wife, who suffered from cystic fibrosis. The trial court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the text of the KCRA does not support a cause of action for discrimination based on an employee's association with a disabled individual. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Employee failed to state a claim supported under Kentucky law. |
| |
| Commonwealth v. Daughtery |
| Docket: 2019-SC-0201-DG Opinion Date: February 18, 2021 Judge: John D. Minton, Jr. Areas of Law: Criminal Law |
| The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals rejecting the trial court's conclusion that Defendant was not required to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) but nevertheless affirming the judgment, holding that Defendant qualified for lifetime SORA registration for his crimes. Defendant pleaded guilty to three felony counts of distributing child pornography. At sentencing, the trial court found, in contrary to the Commonwealth's argument, that Defendant was not required to become a SORA registrant because his crimes were not sex crimes. The court of appeals affirmed, holding (1) SORA requires those who have committed crimes against minors, such as Defendant, to register; but (2) Defendant's three felony convictions exempted him from SORA because his convictions were each charged as first-offense crimes against a minor and all three convictions arose from a single course of conduct. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant must register under SORA for his lifetime because he was convicted of multiple offenses defined as a crime against a minor. |
| |
| Dooley v. Commonwealth |
| Docket: 2019-SC-0262-MR Opinion Date: February 18, 2021 Judge: John D. Minton, Jr. Areas of Law: Criminal Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of murder and tampering with physical evidence and sentencing him to forty-three years' imprisonment, holding that the trial court erred in admitting two items of tangible evidence but that this error was not enough to warrant reversal. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of Defendant's time fraud as motivation to murder; (2) admitting into evidence a red knife and latex gloves found in Defendant's truck was error, but those errors were harmless; (3) the trial court did not commit reversible error by denying a missing-evidence instruction; and (4) Defendant was not entitled to a new trial for cumulative error. |
| |
| Hubers v. Commonwealth |
| Docket: 2018-SC-0667-MR Opinion Date: February 18, 2021 Judge: Hughes Areas of Law: Criminal Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of murder and sentencing her to life imprisonment, holding that Defendant was not entitled to reversal of her convictions. Defendant was convicted of the murder of her boyfriend. Defendant later moved for a new trial after discovering that a convicted felon had served on the jury. The motion was granted and, after a retrial, Defendant was again convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the only potential error identified on appeal was testimony that arguably crossed over into the realm of victim impact testimony, but to the extent that this was error, it was harmless. |
| |
| Pope v. Commonwealth |
| Docket: 2019-SC-0522-MR Opinion Date: February 18, 2021 Judge: Hughes Areas of Law: Criminal Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of trafficking in a controlled substance (heroin) in the first degree and of being a persistent felony offender in the first degree and sentencing him to twenty years in prison, holding that the circuit court did not err in the proceedings below. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court (1) did not err by denying Defendant's pretrial motion to either suppress the evidence from an undercover drug buy or to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction; and (2) properly admitted into evidence better-quality copies of Snapchat messages than the ones provided to Defendant in discovery. |
| |
| Iqtaifan v. Hagerty |
| Docket: 2020-SC-0304-MR Opinion Date: February 18, 2021 Judge: Lambert Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals denying Petitioner's original action seeking a writ of mandamus against Jefferson Circuit Court Judge Tara Hagerty, holding that the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion by denying Petitioner's petition for a writ of mandamus. Petitioner sought the writ to compel Judge Hagerty to dismiss Petitioner's estranged wife's petition for dissolution of marriage, arguing that he and his estranged wife were already divorced under the laws of the Kingdom of Jordan when the petition for dissolution was filed. The court of appeals denied the writ petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to a writ under either the first class of writ or the second class of writ. |
| |
| Elder v. Kentucky Retirement Systems |
| Docket: 2017-SC-0258-DG Opinion Date: February 18, 2021 Judge: Nickell Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury |
| The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming denial of disability retirement benefits by the Board of Trustees of the Kentucky Retirement Systems, holding that the lower courts misinterpreted the holding in Kentucky Retirement Systems v. West, 413 S.W.3d 578 (Ky. 2013), leading to multiple errors. At issue was the proof required of a public employee with less than sixteen years' credit to establish that his genetic condition that was present at conception but dormant until after twelve years on the job was not a "pre-existing" condition disqualifying him from benefits under Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.600(3)(d). Defendant was denied benefits, and the circuit court affirmed. The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's reading of West and its denial of disability retirement benefits. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that multiple errors occurred, and each error was arbitrary, capricious, |
| |
| Martin v. Warrior Coal LLC |
| Docket: 2020-SC-0055-WC Opinion Date: February 18, 2021 Judge: Hughes Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the decisions of the administrative law judge (ALJ) and the Workers' Compensation Board that the twelve percent interest on workers' compensation income benefits that were due but unpaid under the prior version of Ken. Rev. Stat. 342.040 applied in this case, holding that the six percent interest rate provided for in the 2017 amendment to the statute was applicable to all of Appellant's due but unpaid benefits. After the 2017 amendment, section 342.040 now provides for an interest rate of six percent on due but unpaid benefits. In 2016, Appellant experienced a compensable injury. Appellant filed a claim after the effective date of the amendment in 2017 and was awarded income benefits by an ALJ in 2018. Both the ALJ and the Board concluded that the twelve percent interest rate continued to apply to that portion of Appellant's benefit award that was attributable to the period before the 2017 effective date of the amendment. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, based on the General ASsembly's non-codified but express language regarding its intent with respect to the interest rate set forth in the 2017 amendment, the entirety of Appellant's benefit award was subject to the amended six percent interest rate. |
| |
| Foreman v. Auto Club Property-Casualty Insurance Co. |
| Docket: 2018-SC-0618-DG Opinion Date: February 18, 2021 Judge: Vanmeter Areas of Law: Insurance Law |
| In this insurance dispute, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the insureds (Insureds) but remanded the case to the trial court to allow Insureds an opportunity to litigate a lack of capacity defense, holding that the trial court's summary judgment against the insurer (Insurer) was erroneous. Insureds brought a declaratory judgment action to establish that Insurer owed payment under a homeowner's insurance policy for damage caused by a house fire. The house was damaged when Plaintiffs' son, Logan, attempted suicide. Insurer denied liability based on an "intentional loss" exclusion in the policy. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Insureds, declaring the exclusion inoperative. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, viewed objectively, undisputed evidence triggered the exclusion, and therefore, the summary judgment in favor of Insureds was erroneous. The Court then remanded the case to allow Insureds an opportunity to litigate a potential lack of capacity defense. |
| |
| Abbott, Inc. v. Guirguis |
| Docket: 2018-SC-0577-DG Opinion Date: February 18, 2021 Judge: Vanmeter Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law |
| The Supreme Court vacated the opinions of the court of appeals and the circuit court in this case involving the issues of the mandatory recusal of the trial judge and the interpretation of deeds, holding that the circuit court judge in this instance was required to recuse, necessitating this Court's setting aside the judgment. In this property dispute centering on the ownership of a right of way following a railroad's abandonment, the trial judge adjudged Plaintiff the owner of the property. The court of appeals affirmed. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial judge should have recused himself from the matter. The Supreme Court agreed, holding (1) Defendant sufficiently established that, in this proceeding, the trial judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned and that his recusal was mandatory; and (2) interpretation of deeds and the devolution and ownership of a right of way following a railroad's abandonment are matters of law, which an appellate court reviews do novo. |
| |
