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

The case involved two defendants convicted under Kentucky's new per se DUI statute (KRS 189A.010(1)(a)) for driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.10 or more, who received enhanced sentences based on two prior DUI convictions under the previous version of the law that required proof of impairment. They argued on appeal that applying prior convictions to increase penalties under the new statute violated federal and state constitutional prohibitions on ex post facto laws. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the enhanced penalties applied only to the current offenses committed after the statute's effective date and did not retroactively punish the earlier conduct. The court relied on U.S. Supreme Court precedent such as Gryger v. Burke, which established that recidivist enhancements based on prior offender status do not implicate ex post facto clauses, as the punishment is for the new offense considered aggravated by repetition.

criminal law

This case involved Scotty Allen Gabbard, who was charged with first-degree rape and first-degree assault and entered a conditional guilty plea while mentally ill. Gabbard, who had a speech impediment, hearing impairment, and intellectual limitations, underwent multiple psychiatric evaluations between 1988 and 1991, with some finding him incompetent to stand trial due to his conditions. The Kentucky Supreme Court addressed whether the trial court properly handled competency procedures under state law. The court vacated Gabbard's plea and remanded the case, holding that the trial court erred by failing to hold a competency hearing sua sponte after receiving the initial report indicating probable incompetency, as required by due process and KRS 504.110. The decision emphasized that reasonable grounds for a hearing were obvious from the reports, and the proper statutory procedures for evaluation and determination should have been followed.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation insurer, Zurich American Insurance Co., that intervened in an employee's tort lawsuit against third-party drivers to assert subrogation rights under KRS 342.700(1) for medical and wage benefits paid after a 1988 auto accident. The trial court dismissed Zurich's claim with prejudice on the trial date because it lacked an in-person representative to testify, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed, ruling that KRS 411.188 requires subrogees to intervene upon notice to protect their interests in collateral source payments but does not obligate them to prove the underlying tort liability or full damages; Zurich was entitled to proceed with evidence limited to the amounts it had paid.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved two consolidated appeals from Jefferson Circuit Court convictions for wanton murder, where each defendant admitted shooting the victim but claimed the act was justified as self-protection. The trial courts instructed juries on multiple homicide offenses, including wanton murder as an alternative to intentional murder, but without qualifying the wanton murder instruction with self-protection elements. The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed the convictions, holding that the evidence showed only intentional conduct and that the instructions improperly allowed a wanton murder verdict without addressing the self-protection defense under the Kentucky Penal Code. The core reasoning focused on reconciling KRS Chapter 507's definitions of criminal homicide with KRS Chapter 503's justification provisions, concluding that self-defense claims preclude wanton murder absent evidence of extreme indifference separate from an intentional act.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs Larry and Linda Bailey who were exposed to asbestos while removing pipes in a building owned by defendant Capital Holding Corp., leading to claims of negligence and outrageous conduct causing severe emotional distress based on increased future risk of diseases like asbestosis and mesothelioma, along with fear of cancer, despite no present physical injury or disease manifestation. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing all claims, a decision partially affirmed and partially reversed on appeal. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the negligence claim on grounds that such a tort claim does not accrue without manifestation of harm, but reversed dismissal of the outrageous conduct claim because it had already ripened independently of physical injury and could proceed without violating rules against claim-splitting. The court preserved plaintiffs' ability to file negligence claims later if disease manifests.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerns a prisoner's habeas corpus petition filed in Oldham Circuit Court challenging his continued detention under an amended judgment that increased his sentence for second-degree burglary and first-degree persistent felony offender status from five to ten years, entered without his or counsel's presence nearly two months after the original judgment. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' reversal of the trial court's dismissal, holding that the petition could proceed via habeas corpus rather than being limited to an RCr 11.42 motion in the sentencing court. The core reasoning was that the amended judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction, habeas corpus remains an available constitutional remedy not supplanted by other post-conviction procedures, and the original sentence was also void because it failed to meet statutory minimum terms for the Class C felony and PFO enhancement.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a legal malpractice claim brought by John Sklavos against his former attorneys, Michels and Carlin, after his wrongful discharge suit against Pennwalt was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The attorneys defended on statute of limitations grounds under KRS 413.245, arguing the claim accrued when Sklavos hired new counsel more than a year before filing. The trial court granted summary judgment on that basis, but the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the reversal. The court held that the limitations period does not begin to run until the underlying proceeding terminates and damages become certain rather than speculative, so the malpractice action was timely as a matter of law regardless of when the client discovered the alleged negligence.

proceduretorts & liability

In Anderson v. Commonwealth, William Anderson was convicted of two counts of first-degree rape and his wife Wilma Anderson was convicted of two counts of first-degree criminal abuse, both based on the testimony of Wilma's fourteen-year-old daughter D.H. regarding incidents in April 1991, after which the defendants received maximum consecutive sentences following a joint trial represented by the same attorney. The Kentucky Supreme Court vacated the judgments and reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The court identified four reversible errors: denial of meaningful voir dire on the range of penalties, undisclosed bias by a juror related to the complaining witness's boyfriend, refusal to provide discoverable exculpatory or incriminating records from the Cabinet for Human Resources, and admission of hearsay statements by one defendant against the other in violation of Bruton principles, compounded by the trial court's restrictions on defense counsel's ability to make a record.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, an at-will employee sued his employer for wrongful discharge, claiming he was fired for intending to pursue workers' compensation benefits after a work-related back injury. The jury found for the employer using instructions that asked whether the discharge occurred because the employee intended to file and pursue a workers' compensation claim. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the instructions were prejudicially erroneous for failing to require proof that retaliation was the primary motivating factor. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court's judgment, reasoning that the given instructions were not misleading, properly rejected sole-cause language, and adequately framed the causation issue without mandating specific primary-factor terminology.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Wittmer v. Jones, the plaintiff sued the at-fault driver for property damage from a car accident and the driver's insurer, State Farm, alleging a violation of the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act (UCSPA) for offering only repair costs rather than the difference in fair market value of a newly purchased vehicle damaged in the collision. The trial jury found a UCSPA violation but awarded zero damages against State Farm while apportioning fault and damages against the driver, and the trial court denied the insurer's motion to bifurcate the claims. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the trial judgment, ruling that State Farm was entitled to a directed verdict because the plaintiff provided no substantiated proof of diminished value beyond repair costs, the UCSPA and implementing regulations permit repair estimates to indicate fair market value differences, and insurers have no duty to investigate or establish the claimant's loss amount.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Connie Welch, who was prosecuted after giving birth to a son who experienced neonatal abstinence syndrome due to her prenatal use of oxycodone. Welch was convicted of criminal abuse in the second degree under KRS 508.110, along with drug possession charges, but the Court of Appeals vacated the abuse conviction. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed that decision, holding that the criminal abuse statute does not apply because a fetus is not a "person" under the law, consistent with precedents such as Hollis v. Commonwealth. The court reasoned that the statute's language and prior interpretations exclude harm to an unborn child, even when the child is born alive and suffers related symptoms.

criminal lawfamily law

This case was a products liability action in which plaintiffs claimed injuries from sudden unintended acceleration in a parked Volvo and sought discovery by contacting non-party witnesses who had reported similar incidents. The trial court issued a protective order barring such contacts without prior court approval because plaintiffs' expert had not yet shown a scientific basis linking the incidents. The Court of Appeals granted a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to vacate the restriction, and the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that civil discovery rules permit liberal investigation of potentially relevant matters without a threshold showing of admissibility or similarity.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved Martha Sue DeGrella, who had been in a persistent vegetative state since a 1983 assault, sustained by artificial nutrition and hydration via feeding tube, with no prospect of recovery. Her mother, appointed as guardian, sought a declaratory judgment that she could exercise substituted judgment to discontinue the tube based on clear evidence that DeGrella, when competent, had expressed a desire to refuse such treatment in these circumstances. The Kentucky Supreme Court held that a competent adult's right to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment continues after incapacity and may be exercised by a surrogate decision-maker, here the next-of-kin guardian, when supported by clear and convincing evidence of the patient's prior wishes. The court reasoned from principles of patient autonomy and self-determination, distinguishing this from euthanasia and noting that artificial nutrition qualifies as medical treatment subject to the same standards as other interventions. It rejected the guardian ad litem's position that Kentucky law provided no authority for such surrogate action absent statutory guidance.

healthcarecivil rightsfamily law

The case concerned whether Downtown Frankfort, Inc. (DFI), a nonprofit organizing a city festival on public property, violated the First Amendment by denying Capital Area Right to Life, Inc. (CARTL) a booth at the event under a policy excluding controversial advocacy groups and those not fitting the festival's entertainment theme. CARTL sued DFI and its president under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Kentucky declaratory judgment law, alleging content-based exclusion from a public forum that infringed free speech rights. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants after finding no state action, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that DFI was a private actor whose decisions were not attributable to the state, so the constitutional claims did not apply, and the policy had been applied evenhandedly to similar groups.

free speechcivil rights