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

In Knotts v. Zurich Insurance Co., the appellants, who suffered injuries in a construction accident, brought a bad-faith claim against the defendant's insurer under Kentucky's Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act (UCSPA) based on the insurer's conduct during the underlying personal injury litigation. The trial court and Court of Appeals granted summary judgment to the insurer, concluding that the UCSPA applies only to pre-litigation conduct. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statutory duty of good faith and fair dealing continues to govern insurer conduct after a lawsuit is filed. The court based this on the statute's plain language, its remedial character aimed at preventing unfair trade practices, and the legislature's intent that the duty persist until the claim is finally resolved.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved the Commonwealth's appeal of a Court of Appeals decision that reversed Marcus Buford's conviction on two counts of first-degree sexual abuse based on incidents with two girls in his youth group. The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the reversal, though on somewhat different grounds, primarily finding error in the admission of testimony about Buford's silence during a confrontation with another minister, which was presented as an adoptive admission, and in the admission of prior bad acts evidence from Buford's niece under evidentiary rules KRE 403 and 404(b). The court emphasized the need for caution with evidence of silence as an admission of guilt due to its ambiguity and potential unreliability. A dissent argued that the prior acts evidence should have been admissible to show modus operandi and that the trial court's discretion on that issue was not abused.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a former husband's attempt to terminate his permanent maintenance obligation to his disabled ex-wife under a 1991 divorce decree. The trial court granted termination after finding changed circumstances from the later sale and division of marital property, including a farm, that improved the ex-wife's standard of living. The Court of Appeals reversed, and the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed that reversal, holding that the statute requires a showing of substantial post-decree changes rendering the original terms unconscionable, that the cited improvements resulted directly from the decree itself rather than later events, and that defects in the original decree could not justify modification.

family lawproperty

In Powell v. Graham, the appellant, charged with murdering his wife, sought to suppress incriminating statements he made to police while suffering from acute psychosis and moved for a continuance to investigate his mental condition at the time of the statements. The prosecutor requested, and the trial court ordered under CR 35.01, that the appellant undergo a mental health examination by the state's expert, which the Court of Appeals upheld by denying a writ of prohibition. The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the trial court had authority to compel the examination because the appellant had placed his mental health in issue, but the order was deficient for failing to include prospective protections for the appellant's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Accordingly, the court reversed and directed that a writ of prohibition issue to prevent enforcement of the order as written.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved Kenneth White's conviction for complicity to murder Pulaski County Sheriff Sam Catron, who was shot at a political event in 2002; White was alleged to have conspired with Danny Shelley and political rival Jeff Morris to kill the sheriff. White appealed on five grounds, including improper admission of other-crimes evidence under KRE 404(b), insufficient evidence for the aggravating circumstance that the victim was a sheriff performing official duties, inadequate notice of aggravators, denial of a continuance, and refusal to instruct the jury on facilitation as a lesser-included offense. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence supported the aggravating factor because Catron was targeted due to his official position, that procedural requirements were met, and that no lesser-included instruction was warranted on the facts presented.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a medical malpractice claim by Michael Bayless II and his parents against two emergency room physicians for failing to diagnose a fractured wrist after an initial examination and x-ray review, leading to delayed treatment that required surgery. The jury found one doctor liable but awarded only medical expenses with no pain and suffering damages, apportioned fault equally between the doctor and the family for failing to seek follow-up care sooner, and the trial court denied a new trial. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the zero verdict for pain and suffering was permissible based on evidence of the plaintiff's active lifestyle and successful surgical outcome, and that other alleged errors regarding witness questioning and trial procedures lacked merit. The court reasoned that jurors have discretion to determine damages where evidence supports findings of no additional compensable harm beyond medical costs.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

The case involved Eugene Paul Johnson, who was convicted of first-degree robbery by complicity and being a second-degree persistent felony offender after accompanying Jason Brannock to a liquor store robbery in Kentucky. Johnson appealed, arguing insufficient evidence, that the prosecutor improperly defined reasonable doubt during voir dire, that statements about intent to commit another robbery were wrongly admitted, and that the jury instructions violated due process. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, any error regarding reasonable doubt was not preserved or reversible, the other evidence was admissible, and the instructions were proper. A dissent argued that allowing the prosecutor to define reasonable doubt was improper and inconsistent with prior precedent.

criminal lawprocedure