John C. Roach

This case concerned a products liability action brought by Stephen and Laura Taylor after Stephen was injured when a chair manufactured by Compex International collapsed at his parents' home; the Taylors sued Compex and K-Mart on claims including negligence, strict liability, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The trial court dismissed the warranty claim for lack of privity between the plaintiffs and the manufacturer. The Court of Appeals reversed that dismissal, holding that KRS 355.2-318 allowed the claim as an exception to privity for household guests of the buyer. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the dismissal, reasoning that privity remains a prerequisite for implied warranty claims under Kentucky law and that the cited UCC provision did not extend liability to the plaintiffs in this situation.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned Alejandro Gonzalez de Alba's convictions for murdering his wife's adult son and assaulting his wife during a Thanksgiving altercation in their home. Gonzalez de Alba argued on appeal that the trial court erred by allowing his wife to testify about the murder under KRE 504(a)'s spousal testimony privilege. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that an exception to the privilege applied because the murder occurred as part of a continuous course of criminal conduct that included the assault on the spouse. The court reasoned that the facts showed the events were logically related and that applying the privilege would not serve its purpose of preserving marital harmony.

criminal lawfamily law

In Wilson v. Commonwealth, the appellant was convicted of murder following a 2003 shooting in Paducah and appealed on two grounds: that the trial court should have suppressed his post-arrest statements to police because he had invoked his Fifth Amendment rights beforehand, and that evidence of his prior marijuana possession should not have been admitted as prior bad acts. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and 21-year sentence, ruling that the appellant had not effectively invoked his Miranda rights before arrest, that his subsequent waiver was knowing and voluntary, and that the marijuana evidence was admissible under KRE 404(b) to prove motive for the shooting. The court applied standards for suppression motions and evidence balancing, finding the statements consistent with the crime scene and the probative value of the evidence not substantially outweighed by prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a dispute over the beneficiary designation on a Hartford annuity worth about $180,000 purchased by Duane Hart, who died in 2000. His widow, Barbara Hart, was the original sole beneficiary, but his children from a prior marriage, Christopher Hart and Toni Gail Carloftis, claimed the proceeds based on unsigned change-of-beneficiary forms that Duane had filled out in 1997 but never mailed; the forms were discovered after his death and later sent to Hartford. The Whitley County Circuit Court granted summary judgment to the children, finding substantial compliance with the contract, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed. The majority held that the contract required written notice to Hartford's administrative office for a change to take effect, and because that notice was never received during Duane's lifetime, Barbara remained the designated beneficiary under the policy terms as interpreted in prior precedent like Hill v. Union Central Life Insurance Co. Dissenting justices argued that intent presented a factual question for a jury and that the notice requirement existed primarily for Hartford's protection.

family lawproperty

This case involved the Commonwealth of Kentucky seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent a district court from allowing two defendants charged with first-offense DUI and related traffic misdemeanors to proceed with bench trials instead of jury trials. The district court granted the defendants' motions for bench trials over the Commonwealth's objection under RCr 9.26(1), and both the circuit court and Court of Appeals denied the writ on grounds that the rule did not apply to petty offenses not charged by indictment. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed, holding that RCr 9.26(1) requires the Commonwealth's consent to waive a jury trial in such cases, that the Commonwealth lacked an adequate remedy by appeal due to double jeopardy concerns, and that the prerequisites for the writ were met despite arguments about docket interference.

criminal lawprocedure

In Dean v. Bondurant, movants sought to disqualify Justice Roach from participating in the Kentucky Supreme Court's decision on a motion for discretionary review, citing concerns that his impartiality might reasonably be questioned under Canon 3E(1) due to campaign contributions and fundraiser hosting by respondents' counsel and members of the law firm Frost Brown Todd, which was itself a party. The opinion analyzes the objective standard for recusal, the practical effects of a justice stepping aside (including the persistent four-vote requirement for granting review and the risk of an equally divided court), and the normal role of attorney contributions in judicial elections under Kentucky ethics opinions. Justice Roach ultimately granted the recusal motion, emphasizing the cumulative donations associated with the firm and the fact that the parties requesting recusal were the ones disadvantaged by it, while rejecting any suggestion of misconduct. The order underscores the need for careful consideration of recusal requests given their consequences for court functioning.

procedureelections