Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Rodrick Cameron was charged with driving under the influence (DUI). Cameron filed a motion to suppress, claiming that the deputy sheriff that stopped Cameron's vehicle lacked particularized suspicion to stop him. The justice court denied Cameron's motion. Cameron entered a guilty plea to DUI while reserving his right to appeal the justice court's denial of his motion to suppress. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the district court did not err in affirming the justice court's denial of Cameron's motion to suppress because, based on the totality of the circumstances, the deputy sheriff had sufficient facts to form a particularized suspicion of wrongdoing to initiate an investigative stop.

Miles Kingman was charged with attempted deliberate homicide for the brutal assault of a man outside a bar. A jury acquitted Kingman of the homicide charge but convicted him of aggravated assault, a lesser-included offense. Kingman was sentenced to twenty years' incarceration. On appeal, Kingman (1) claimed that the publicity surrounding the incident had prejudiced the community to such an extent that he could not get a fair trial by jurors drawn from that community, and (2) argued that the prosecutor improperly characterized him at the sentencing hearing as an "animal" that "needed to be caged." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Kingman did not show a sufficient basis for presuming that the entire community jury pool was corrupted by the pre-trial publicity; and (2) although the prosecutor's remarks were inappropriate, there was no indication that the remarks had factored into the district court's decision to impose the maximum sentence for aggravated assault.

In this consolidated appeal, each Appellant was charged with DUI, and each took a breath test on the Intoxilyzer 8000. Each Appellant sought source code and other information related to the Intoxilyzer 8000 during the prosecution of their cases. The district court limited the requests of each Appellant. After these rulings, each Appellant pled guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court on all issues, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion (1) by giving full faith and credit to a Kentucky court's determination that the source code was a trade secret of CMI, Inc. and determining that Appellants did not show undue hardship requiring the court to order CMI to make the source code available to Appellants; and (2) by quashing portions of Appellants' subpoena duces tecum seeking information regarding the use of every Intoxilyzer 8000 in the state after finding the request was unreasonable and oppressive.

Alicia Hocter was caring for a six-month-old when she swung the child's head into the top bar of her crib and failed to seek medical attention for the child. Hocter pled guilty to charges of aggravated assault and criminal endangerment, after which she withdrew her guilty plea. A jury found Hocter guilty of both charges. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it denied Hocter's motion to dismiss the charge of criminal endangerment as Hocter had actual notice of the facts that the State was obligated to prove to support its theories of criminal endangerment; and (2) the district court did not err in instructing the jury on criminal endangerment predicated on a defendant's omission or failure to act as the instructions properly required the jury to determine whether Hocter breached that duty.

Patrick Chesterfield was convicted in district court of driving or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI), his fourth offense. Chesterfield appealed, arguing that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss without holding an evidentiary hearing concerning his claim that his three prior convictions for DUI were constitutionally infirm because he was denied his right to counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Chesterfield failed in his burdens of production and persuasion to demonstrate that his three prior DUI convictions were constitutionally infirm, and accordingly, the district court did not err by denying Chesterfield's motion to dismiss.

Leslie Staebler was convicted by a jury in municipal court of misdemeanor driving while intoxicated and violation of the seatbelt law. The district court affirmed, holding that Staebler's fundamental right to a fair trial was not violated. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding that the district court did not err in affirming the municipal court where (1) the City attorney did not unfairly imply that Staebler's conduct was worse than it actually was; (2) comments of one juror did not inflame or prejudice other members of the jury against Staebler; (3) the City attorney did not err during rebuttal to Staebler's closing argument when she inferred that because Staebler was not able to brake appropriately for oncoming traffic, he would not have been able to brake properly had a child been playing in the road; and (4) the evidence was sufficient to support Staebler's conviction.

Harley Howard was charged with incest and was sentenced to forty years' incarceration. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Howard was not denied effective assistance of counsel where he did not meet his burden of showing deficient performance by counsel's failure to challenge the competency of the State's two child witnesses or the admission of their hearsay statements; and (2) the district court's sentence was not augmented because Howard maintained his innocence, but rather, the sentence was within the statutory parameters for incest and was based on ample testimony relating to Howard's treatment potential, risk to his children, and numerous psychosexual evaluations.

Appellant Angela O'Connell was involved in a theft scheme whereby Appellant's husband would steal property from a local business and sell the stolen goods for cash. Appellant pled guilty to accountability for theft pursuant to a plea agreement. Upon sentencing, Appellant was prohibited from entering bars and casinos and consuming alcohol, and was ordered to pay restitution to the business she stole from in the amount of $159,606. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) because the district court's determination of lost profits in this matter was based upon speculation and not supported by substantial evidence, the district court erred by ordering payment of lost profits, in addition to the replacement value of the stolen property, as part of Appellant's restitution obligation, and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by prohibiting Appellant from entering bars as a condition of her sentence because the restriction furthered Appellant's rehabilitation. Remanded for recalculation of restitution based upon the replacement value of the stolen property.

Robert Riggs was convicted by a jury of incest, sexual intercourse without consent, and two counts of sexual assault. Riggs filed an amended petition for postconviction relief, alleging approximately eighty claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court partially denied Riggs' petition, finding many of the claims were barred for various reasons. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Riggs' remaining twelve claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that counsel was not ineffective in his pretrial work, and counsel did not make the errors alleged by Riggs during trial. Because the Court found no ineffective assistance of counsel on Riggs' individual claims, the Court found there was no cumulative error.

John Miller pled guilty to two counts of deliberate homicide. Miller later filed suit against James Goetz, the attorney that defended him, and arranged for Patrick Begley's limited representation in his claims against Goetz. Begley later withdrew from representing Miller. Miller then filed suit against Begley, alleging breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fraudulent deceit. The district court granted summary judgment to Begley, finding that Begley had reasonably assisted Miller with his claims against Goetz and the dismissal of the Goetz claim was based on legal deficiencies unrelated to Begley's legal services. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Begley as Miller failed to demonstrate genuine issues of material fact existed regarding his claims.