William Graves

In Williams v. Commonwealth, the defendant was convicted by a jury of three counts of third-degree rape based on allegations by a 14-year-old victim that he engaged in sexual intercourse with her. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, but the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial. The court held that the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of attempted third-degree rape. This ruling was based on the victim's initial statements to police indicating only attempted intercourse, which created a factual issue for the jury as to whether the acts were completed or merely attempted, requiring instructions on all theories supported by the evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a petition by the Commonwealth for a writ of prohibition against a trial judge's order requiring the state Finance and Administration Cabinet to pay up to $5,000 for private mental health testing of death-row inmate Karu Gene White, who sought to prove he was mentally retarded and thus ineligible for execution under Atkins v. Virginia. The Kentucky Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that while White was entitled to expert assistance to establish mental retardation as a mitigating circumstance, KRS 31.185 requires use of state facilities unless shown to be impractical, and the judge abused discretion by ordering private expert funding without that showing. The Court further reasoned that the Commonwealth lacked an adequate remedy on appeal because the funds could not be recouped from an indigent defendant, and the issue was capable of repetition causing irreparable injury. The decision prohibits the funding order absent the required impracticality demonstration.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over whether a 2003 agreed order temporarily transferring physical custody of a child to her father during her mother's military deployment modified the parties' original 1996 permanent joint custody decree. The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the Court of Appeals' reversal of the trial court's order awarding custody to the father, ruling that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the permanent order because the 2003 order was temporary and no motion to modify with supporting affidavit had been filed under KRS 403.350. The court explained that the parties had intended only a temporary arrangement tied to the mother's deployment, so the original permanent order remained in effect and any modification required compliance with the statutory standards in KRS 403.340 for showing changed circumstances and the child's best interests.

family lawprocedure

The case involved Shawn Thacker's convictions by a Hardin Circuit Court jury for first-degree robbery, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and first-degree persistent felony offender, resulting in a twenty-year sentence, based on his robbery of a convenience store while displaying a revolver. Thacker appealed, arguing that the jury instructions violated Apprendi v. New Jersey and related precedents by failing to require the jury to determine whether the gun was a "deadly weapon," an essential element of first-degree robbery under KRS 515.020, and that the court should overturn precedent treating this as a legal question for the judge. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that whether an object qualifies as a deadly weapon is a matter of law for the court under Hicks v. Commonwealth and that the instructions properly submitted the elements to the jury. A dissent argued that the jury should have been instructed on the lesser offense of second-degree robbery due to questions about the gun's operability.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a medical battery claim brought by Eva Hoofnel against surgeons Drs. Segal and Galandiuk, alleging unauthorized removal of her ovaries and uterus during colorectal cancer surgery even though she had admitted the medical necessity of those steps. The Jefferson Circuit Court granted summary judgment to the doctors on the basis of the signed consent form, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for different reasons, holding that the consent form's authorization for additional medically necessary procedures, along with evidence of conditional verbal consent, defeated the battery claim as a matter of law. The court distinguished medical battery from negligence and found no genuine issue of material fact on the consent issue.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

In Hilltop Basic Resources, Inc. v. County of Boone, a mining company applied for a zoning map amendment to allow underground limestone mining in a rural area not zoned for it; the planning commission recommended approval, but the fiscal court denied the application. Hilltop challenged the denial as arbitrary and claimed bias by two fiscal court members who had publicly opposed mining generally. The circuit court upheld the denial, the court of appeals reversed on procedural due process grounds, but the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed, holding that zoning decisions are legislative functions not requiring an impartial tribunal like judicial proceedings, that general policy biases do not violate due process, and remanding for review of whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory