Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained from a search of her vehicle during an investigatory stop. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to several drug-related charges and subsequently appealed. The court of appeals reversed, concluding (1) Defendant was detained for an unreasonably prolonged amount of time; and (2) the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the duration of the stop beyond the time needed to complete a citation for a traffic violation. The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals and affirmed the circuit court's order denying Defendant's motion to suppress, holding (1) Defendant was detained beyond the time necessary to effectuate the purpose of the traffic stop; but (2) the prolonging of Defendant's detention was justified by at least a reasonable and articulable suspicion that she was engaged in criminal activity. View "Commonwealth v. Bucalo" on Justia Law

Appellant was indicted for the crimes of murder, wanton endangerment, tampering with physical evidence, and trafficking in marijuana while in possession of a firearm. After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of the charges and sentenced to twenty-four years imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that the trial court (1) did not violate Appellant's constitutional right to counsel by denying Appellant's motion to dismiss the indictments against him; (2) did not err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress statements he made to police detectives because Appellant did not unambiguously invoke his right to an attorney; (3) did not err in its evidentiary rulings; (4) did not err in denying Appellant's motion for a directed verdict on the trafficking in marijuana charge; and (5) did not err by denying Appellant's motion for a mistrial after the Commonwealth failed to redact portions of Appellant's recorded interview with the detectives. View "Brown v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree wanton endangerment, fleeing or evading the police, first-degree illegal possession of a controlled substance, and second-degree criminal mischief. The trial court sentenced Appellant as a persistent felony offender (PFO) to twenty years' incarceration. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's conviction and sentence, holding (1) Ky. R. Crim. P. 9.40, which prescribes the number of peremptory challenges in a criminal case, is valid, and the Court has the authority to promulgate that rule and all other rules of practice and procedure in the Commonwealth; and (2) the Commonwealth improperly mischaracterized Appellant's PFO status during closing arguments of the PFO guilt phase trial, but the error was not palpable. View "Glenn v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellee, a licensed attorney with experience in the practice of criminal law, was indicted on five counts of failure to file Kentucky tax returns for several years. Prior to trial, Appellee appeared on his own behalf, but one day before jury trial was to begin, Appellee requested a continuance to retain private counsel. The trial judge overruled the motion without holding a formal Faretta hearing. After a jury trial, Appellee was convicted on five counts of failing to file a state tax return. The court of appeals reversed the conviction. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the circuit court's judgment, holding that criminal defendants who are experienced criminal trial attorneys are not entitled to a Faretta hearing or inquiry prior to representing themselves. View "Commonwealth v. Ayers" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant filed to sequential motions to suppress evidence, contending that the warrantless search of his mobile home was illegal and that the Commonwealth did not establish the proper chain of custody for the evidence seized from his home. Both motions were denied, and Defendant was found guilty as charged. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the warrantless search of Defendant's mobile home satisfied neither the textual directives of the Fourth Amendment and Section 10 of the Kentucky Constitution nor the judicially-created exception under Maryland v. Buie. View "Brumley v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

In Haydon Bridge I, the Supreme Court held that provisions of the 2000-2002 and 2002-2004 budget bills, which suspended annual General Fund appropriations to the Benefit Reserve Fund (BRF) were constitutional but that other provisions of the bills ordering funds transferred from the BRF to the General Fund were unconstitutional. On remand, the trial court granted permanent prospective relief prohibiting the future transfer of funds from the BRF to the General Fund or other state agencies and ordered retroactive injunctive relief requiring the Governor and State Budget Director (collectively, "the Governor") to return monies that had been transferred from the BRF to the General Fund from 2000 to 2010. The court's order addressed, among other things, transfers from the part of the BRF known as the Coal Workers' Pneumoconiosis Fund. The Governor appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the retroactive injunctive relief ordered by the trial court violated sovereign immunity and the separation of powers; (2) there was no basis for the trial court's award of attorneys' fees; and (3) because Plaintiffs had no standing with regard to the Pneumoconiosis Fund, the trial court should not have enjoined transfers from that Fund based on a request from Plaintiffs. View "Beshear v. Haydon Bridge Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea to second-degree possession of a controlled substance and carrying a concealed deadly weapon. Appellant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized upon his arrest because the arresting officer lacked probable cause to believe that Appellant had committed a misdemeanor offense by carrying a concealed deadly weapon. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) an objectively reasonable police officer would have believed there was probable cause to arrest Appellant for carrying a concealed weapon; and (2) therefore, the search and ultimate seizure of the evidence leading to Appellant's conviction were valid, and the circuit court thus did not err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress. View "Vega v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of several criminal offenses, including first-degree robbery and possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant did not suffer prejudice when the trial court's voir dire procedure was not consistent with the applicable statutes and rules, as the procedure employed in this case did not constitute a substantial deviation from the proper method; (2) the trial court's use of Appellant's single prior felony conviction to establish the offense of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon and to enhance Appellant's first-degree robbery sentences under the persistent felony offender statute did not constitute double enhancement; and (3) the trial judge properly concluded that a mistrial was not warranted after a juror had contact with a victim-witness. View "Oro-Jimenez v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of complicity to murder and first-degree complicity to robbery. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's conviction, holding that the trial court did not err by (1) denying Appellant's motions for mistrial after the Commonwealth repeatedly referenced two of Appellant's three co-indictees' guilty pleas in the presence of the jury; (2) admitting eighteen jail letters written between Appellant and a co-indictee as relevant evidence; (3) holding that Appellant's co-indictee had not waived his Fifth Amendment right not to testify, thus not implicating Appellant's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense due to the co-indictee's refusal to testify; and (4) denying Appellant's motion for mistrial after the jury briefly accessed inadmissible evidence during deliberations. View "Mayse v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendants entered conditional guilty pleas to second-degree trafficking in a controlled substance. Defendants' convictions arose from dealing in Suboxone, the trade name of a drug containing buprenorphine. Before the trial court, Defendants challenged the scientific evidence used in classifying buprenorphine as a Schedule III controlled substance. Defendants argued that the Cabinet for Health and Family Services wrongly reclassified buprenorphine in 2002 from a Schedule V to Schedule III controlled substance, which change came about as a result of a change in federal law. The trial court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on a challenge to the Cabinet's scheduling of a controlled substance following federal action. The court of appeals remanded with directions to name the Attorney General and Cabinet as parties. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court did have jurisdiction here, as a trial court may take judicial notice of the federal regulation used by the Cabinet and make a determination whether the findings comport with the requirements of Kentucky law; and (2) the Attorney General and Cabinet were not necessary parties in this case. View "Commonwealth v. Hamilton" on Justia Law