Charles M. Leibson

The case involved the joint trial and convictions of Charles Chumbler, Holly Kariakis, and Michael Kariakis for the murder of Nelda Chumbler, Charles's wife, with Michael convicted as the shooter and the others as accomplices, allegedly motivated by insurance proceeds. The defendants were sentenced to lengthy prison terms, and they appealed on multiple grounds including the admission of evidence about their sexual behavior and relationships, as well as other evidentiary and procedural issues. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the convictions of all three defendants and remanded for further proceedings. The core reasoning centered on errors in the trial, particularly the handling of evidence regarding the defendants' sexuality and related matters that affected the fairness of the proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

In Nelson Steel Corp. v. McDaniel, an employee sued his employer for wrongful termination after being laid off, alleging the discharge occurred because his prior workers' compensation claims against a former employer would raise the current employer's insurance rates. The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer on the ground that KRS 342.197(1) did not cover claims against prior employers, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Kentucky Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's judgment, holding that the statute's bar on discharge "for filing and pursuing a lawful claim under this chapter" applies only to claims filed against the current employer and does not extend to legitimate claims against previous employers.

labor & employment

This case involved a personal injury lawsuit arising from a motor vehicle collision, in which the plaintiff sought damages including medical expenses, and the trial court admitted evidence of collateral source payments under KRS 411.188. The jury awarded only the plaintiff's out-of-pocket amounts rather than full billed expenses, and the Court of Appeals upheld the judgment. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed, holding the statute unconstitutional because it dictates rules of evidence and procedure in civil trials, thereby intruding on powers reserved exclusively to the judiciary under Sections 27, 28, and 116 of the Kentucky Constitution. The court reasoned that the statute confuses the jury on damages issues without validly imposing a substantive limit that would be subject to Section 54 analysis, and it overruled prior precedent upholding the law.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerned a custody dispute over Robin Shifflet between her mother, Ginger Shifflet, and her paternal grandmother, Ortha Shifflet. The trial court awarded custody to the grandmother under a best-interests standard after finding the child had lived primarily with the grandmother since infancy. The Court of Appeals reversed, directing custody to the mother absent clear and convincing proof of unfitness. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for retrial, holding that the initial decree granted only temporary custody so modification statutes did not apply, but the mother could have waived her superior parental rights under KRS 405.020 by long-term relinquishment, after which best interests would govern.

family law

This case involved a custody dispute over a child born to unmarried parents, where the natural father sought custody after establishing paternity, while the maternal grandmother and the child's mother petitioned for joint custody excluding the father. The trial court applied the best-interests-of-the-child standard under KRS 403.270 and awarded joint custody to the grandmother and mother, with visitation and support obligations for the father. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed, holding that the best-interests standard applies only between parents and that KRS 405.020(1) instead grants a natural parent a superior right to custody over a non-parent unless the parent is proven unfit or has waived that right through knowing and voluntary relinquishment shown by clear and convincing evidence. The court remanded for further proceedings to determine whether waiver occurred and to apply the correct legal framework, noting that changed circumstances for the mother could also be considered on retrial.

family law

The case involved George Roberson's appeal from Kentucky convictions on multiple sexual offense charges against an 11-year-old victim, including first-degree rape, sodomy, and sexual abuse that occurred partly during travel between Kentucky and Indiana in 1989, following an earlier guilty plea in Indiana and a mistrial on some counts. The Kentucky Supreme Court addressed claims that the law of the case doctrine barred review of certain issues from a prior appeal, that the prosecution violated time limits under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) by continuing the trial without proper justification, and that improper prosecutorial comments during closing arguments denied due process. The court held that the law of the case doctrine did not apply because the current appeal concerned different charges from those resolved in the prior appeal. It further concluded that the prosecutor's comments were not improper or egregious enough to warrant reversal, but it suspended finality and remanded for a hearing on whether the IAD continuance complied with statutory requirements for good cause shown in open court.

criminal lawprocedure