Use Adobe's Conversion Tool to convert the following PDF files into text in the event that you are viewing this page with assistive technology that is not compatible.

Bailey v. Com., 2002-SC-001090-MR -Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

On December 19, 2001, Appellant and Joseph Starks were engaged in an altercation in a grocery store parking lot. In the course of the altercation, Starks jumped into the back seat of his car, and Appellant fired several shots into the car without hitting Starks . Appellant then fled and was later arrested by police . A search of his car revealed seventeen "rocks" of cocaine, a handgun, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia . Appellant subsequently confessed to the shooting . Appellant was indicted on several felony charges, and the case went to trial. At trial, the jury found Appellant guilty of two counts of Wanton Endangerment, one count of First-Degree Possession of a Controlled Substance, Firearm Enhanced, one count of Possession of Marijuana, Firearm Enhanced, and one count of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, Firearm Enhanced .

Battoe v. Com., 2003-SC-000132-MR -Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

On the evening of March 16, 2001, Appellant, Jerry Don Battoe, was driving in McCracken County in the direction of Paducah when his automobile left the road and struck a tree, killing one of his passengers and injuring each of his four other passengers . Appellant was subsequently convicted by a McCracken Circuit Court jury of one count of manslaughter in the second degree, KRS 507.040, three counts of assault in the second degree, KRS 508.020, one count of wanton endangerment in the second degree, KRS 508 .070, and one count of owning/operating a motor vehicle without insurance, KRS 304.39-080, and sentenced to a total of twenty years in prison . He appeals to this Court as a matter of right, Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b), asserting six claims of reversible error, viz: (1) overruling his motion for directed verdict of acquittal; (2) overruling his motion for a mistrial after the prosecutor failed to introduce evidence supporting a portion of his penalty phase opening statement; (3) improperly restricting the voir dire questions asked by defense counsel; (4) permitting the prosecutor to ask a witness a question regarding Appellant's prior marijuana use without having provided pretrial notice ; (5) rendering prejudicial guilt phase instructions ; and (6) permitting the prosecutor to urge the jury to recommend a sentence greater than the statutory maximum . Finding no error, we affirm.

Batts v. Com., 2004-SC-000364-MR -Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Darryl Batts, was convicted of ten counts of First-Degree Robbery, one count of First-Degree Possession of a Controlled Substance, and one count of First-Degree Persistent Felony Offender status. He now contends that the trial court erred (1) by refusing to suppress the drugs found on his person at the time of his arrest; (2) by omitting an element of First-Degree Robbery from the jury instructions ; (3) by denying his request to use psychological records to impeach the testimony of a witness for the prosecution; (4) by allowing the prosecution to use its peremptory challenges in a racially-discriminatory manner; (5) by failing to enter a directed verdict on his behalf; and (6) by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment for violation of speedy trial rights. Finding no error, we affirm Appellant's convictions .

Beard v Com, 2003-SC-000915-MR -Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF -

This appeal is from a judgment based on a jury verdict that convicted Beard of murder and being a second-degree persistent felony offender. She was sentenced to forty years in prison . The questions presented are whether prior bad acts were improperly admitted into evidence; whether the failure to designate the defendant as eligible for the domestic violence exemption and the presentation of both parole eligibility guidelines to the jury was reversible error; and whether reversible error occurred when a witness testified to an incident despite a lack of personal knowledge . Beard admitted that she shot and killed the victim, who was her former boyfriend and the father of her third child. She claimed that she acted in self defense. To support that justification, Beard offered evidence that the victim had committed acts of domestic violence against her in the past. The Commonwealth's theory was that Beard, who shot the victim multiple times, killed him intentionally. In support of that position, it offered evidence that the defendant had previously threatened and attacked the victim . The jury convicted Beard of murder and being a second-degree persistent felony offender. She was sentenced to forty years in prison . This appeal followed .

Berry v Com., 2004-SC-000231-DG - To Be Published, Reversing -- PDF

Appellant, Gregory A. Berry, was convicted of second degree assault and being a persistent felony offender (PFO) in the first degree. The trial court entered judgment in accordance with the jury verdict and imposed the jury-recommended minimum sentence of ten years. Berry's conviction stemmed from an altercation with his former in-laws, Howard and Elaine McGregor. Berry's ex-wife, Kimberly Berry, was incarcerated at the time of the altercation . Most of her belongings remained in the home where Berry was living . Kimberly gave her mother a power of attorney to collect her property from the home. The McGregors arrived at Berry's home on February 5, 2000, around 9:00 a .m. to retrieve Kimberly's property because Berry was preparing to move .

Blair v. Com., 2002-SC-000834-MR -Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, David Blair, was convicted by a Boyd Circuit Court jury of eleven counts of rape in the first degree, Class A felony, KRS 510.040(2) (victim under twelve years of age), and one count of sexual abuse in the first degree, KRS 510.110 ; and was found to be a persistent felony offender (PFO) in the second degree, KRS 532.080(2) . The jury fixed his sentence at imprisonment for 560 years (fifty years for each conviction of rape in the first degree and a PFO-enhanced penalty of ten years for the conviction of sexual abuse in the first degree, to run consecutively). The trial judge reduced the penalty to the maximum aggregate sentence of seventy years. KRS 532.110(1)(c). Appellant appeals to this Court as a matter of right, Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b), asserting the following claims of reversible error: (1) the court violated his constitutional right of confrontation by permitting the alleged child victims, A.F. and C.F., to testify outside of his presence by way of prerecorded testimony; (2) the judge abandoned his role as a neutral arbiter during an in camera interview with the two child witnesses; (3) a witness for the Commonwealth commented on Appellant's exercise of his right to remain silent; (4) the Commonwealth failed to establish the chain of custody of A. F.'s blood sample that was used to prove that he was the father of her aborted fetus ; and (5) the prosecutor informed the jury of the details of Appellant's prior convictions of child sexual abuse during the penalty/PFO phase of the trial. Having considered the evidence and applicable law, we affirm Appellant's convictions and the sentences imposed therefor.

Blevins v. Com., 2003-SC-000131-MR - Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Paul Allen Blevins, was convicted in the Laurel Circuit Court of firstdegree robbery and for being a first-degree persistent felony offender. He was sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment and appeals to this Court as a matter of right. Finding no error, we affirm.

Bowen v. Com., 2003-SC-000744-MR - Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, William E . Bowen, Jr., was convicted by a Bullitt County Circuit Court jury of first-degree sexual abuse and first-degree sodomy. Appellant waived jury sentencing and accepted the Commonwealth's recommended sentence of five years' imprisonment for the sexual abuse charge and twenty years' imprisonment for the sodomy charge, to be served concurrently . Appellant appeals to this Court as a matter of right. Ky. Const. § 110 (2)(b). He assigns the following trial court errors : (1) improper denial of a motion to suppress his taped statement to police, (2) failure to allow Appellant to play his taped statement to the jury during voir dire and during opening statements, (3) failure to grant a continuance to secure a new expert witness, (4) failure to grant a directed verdict in his favor, and (5) improper denial of his motion to introduce a posed photograph into evidence. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm .

Bowling v. Com., 2004-SC-000880-MR - To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

At the conclusion of a one-week trial in December 1990, a Fayette Circuit Court jury convicted Appellant, Thomas Clyde Bowling, of two counts of murder and one count of assault in the fourth degree. The Commonwealth introduced evidence at trial from which the jury could and did believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant caused his vehicle to collide with a vehicle occupied by Edward Lee and Ernestine Lynn Earley and their two-year-old child while they were parked in front of Mr. and Mrs. Earley's dry cleaning business; and that Appellant exited his vehicle, approached the Earleys' vehicle, and intentionally fired gunshots at them at point-blank range, killing Mr. and Mrs. Earley and wounding their child. Appellant was sentenced to death for each of the two murders. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.

In Re: Bowling, 2004-SC-001000-MR - Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

This appeal is from the findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court denying the motion by Bowling and his attorneys to permit post trial juror interviews . Bowling presents the following four arguments for our review: 1) that his 2004 request to interview his jury has not been previously raised or rejected and is not barred by the law of the case ; 2) that he has presented a sufficient showing of good cause to interview his jury; 3) that due process and fundamental fairness require that his attorneys be allowed to interview his jury; and 4) that the requirements of heightened reliability mandates that he be given the opportunity to investigate reliable evidence that his jurors imposed a death sentence without considering his mitigating evidence.

Bowling v Com., 2004-SC-000907-MR - To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

This appeal stems from the dismissal of an action filed in the Fayette Circuit Court by Appellant, Thomas C. Bowling, pursuant to the Open Records Act, KRS 61 .870 to KRS 61 .884 . Appellant's complaint alleged that the Lexington- Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG) wrongfully withheld records after he made a series of open records requests . On appeal, he claims that the trial court erred by 1) canceling an evidentiary hearing and quashing the subpoenas issued for representatives of the Fayette County Commonwealth's Attorney's office and the Kentucky Attorney General's office ; and 2) finding that the LFUCG had not willfully violated the Open Records Act. In 1990, a Fayette Circuit Court jury convicted Appellant of two counts of murder and one count of assault in the fourth degree and sentenced him to death for the murders of Edward Lee and Ernestine Lynn Earley . His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal .

Boyd v Com., 2004-SC-000337-MR - Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Jeffrey Lee Boyd, was convicted of trafficking in a controlled substance in the first-degree and received the statutory maximum ten-year sentence for that charge . After finding Boyd guilty of being a first-degree persistent felony offender, the jury enhanced his punishment to twenty years' imprisonment. He appeals to this Court as a matter of right . Ky . Const § 110 (2)(b) . Boyd assigns two errors to the trial court proceedings : (1) improper denial of his motion for recusal, and (2) substantial prejudice arising from his appearance before the jury in shackles . Finding no merit to either of Boyd's arguments, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Bray v Com., 2003-SC-0656-MR-Not To Be Published,Affirming -- PDF

In the early morning hours of November 8, 1982, a mobile home in Marshall County, Kentucky, burned to the ground . Inside, police found the bodies of Audrey Bray and her mother, Effie York, each with a gunshot wound to the head. Appellant, Steven Bray, who was Audrey's husband and Effie's son-in-law, was charged with the crimes .

Brown v Com,2002-SC-000739-MR -Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

David Brown was found guilty of two counts of first-degree manslaughter by a Christian County jury. Brown was sentenced to consecutive twelve-year terms of imprisonment, and he appeals to this Court as a matter of right.' Three arguments are put forward in favor of a new trial . First, Brown contends, the Court should overturn his convictions because his constitutional right to a unanimous verdict was violated. Second, he contends, the trial court improperly instructed the jury as to his selfprotection defense. Finally, he posits that the jury improperly returned a verdict finding him guilty of first-degree manslaughter when the evidence would have, at most, allowed a conviction for second-degree manslaughter. Disagreeing with each of Brown's positions, we affirm the final judgment.

Brown v. Com., 2003-SC-000235-MR - To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

On the night of January 15, 2002, in Hopkinsville, Kentucky, Appellant, Demond T. Brown, drove his Ford Crown Victoria automobile into an intersection against a red light and collided with another automobile operated by Debra Conklin and also occupied by Conklin's teenage daughter, Megan . Timothy Brown and Laticia Leavell, passengers in Appellant's vehicle, were injured as a result of the collision ; Debra and Megan Conklin were killed . Appellant was subsequently convicted by a Christian Circuit Court jury of two counts of wanton murder, KRS 507.020(1)(b), and two counts of wanton endangerment in the first degree, KRS 508 .060 . He received sentences of twenty years imprisonment for each murder conviction and one year imprisonment for each wanton endangerment conviction, all to run concurrently for a total of twenty years. He appeals to this Court as a matter of right, Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b), asserting three claims of reversible error, viz: (1) denial of his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on the wanton murder charges; (2) failure to grant him a new trial due to alleged juror misconduct; and (3) improper redirect examination and closing argument by the prosecutor. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Brown v. Com., 2003-SC-001023-MR - Not To Be Published, Reversing and Remanding -- PDF

This appeal is from a judgment based on a jury verdict that convicted Brown of murder, first-degree burglary and first-degree robbery. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of probation or parole for 25 years . The questions presented are whether two prospective jurors should have been removed for cause; whether hearsay evidence was improperly admitted; whether evidence of bias by prosecution witnesses was erroneously excluded ; and whether the defendant was denied the right to present evidence in his defense.

Brown v Com., 2005-SC-000007-MR- Not To Be Published,Affirming -- PDF

This is an appeal from the Warren Circuit Court's jury verdict entered October 14, 2004. Appellant was sentenced to a total of 35 years imprisonment on three counts of first-degree rape, two counts of first-degree sodomy and persistent felony offender in the first-degree . Appellant appeals to this Court as a matter of right, pursuant to Ky. Const. §110(2)(b), arguing there was insufficient evidence to convict him of three counts of rape and two counts of sodomy. Appellant also argues he was substantially prejudiced and denied a fair and impartial jury when the court denied his motion to strike a venire person for cause . After review of the record, we affirm the trial court.

Brown v. Com., 2004-SC-000021-MR - Not To Be Published, Affirming In Part, Reversing in Part and Remanding -- PDF

Appellant, Randy D . Brown, was convicted in the Butler Circuit Court of manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine, trafficking in marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia . The charges were subject to the weapons enhancement provisions contained in KRS 218A.992, and Appellant was sentenced to a total of thirty-five years' imprisonment. He appeals to this Court as a matter of right contending that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to convict him of manufacturing methamphetamine; (2) the constitutional protection against double jeopardy was violated by his convictions for both manufacturing and possession of methamphetamine; (3) the trial court improperly permitted two Commonwealth experts to testify despite any lack of notice to the defense; (4) his due process rights were violated by the jury's consideration of new evidence during deliberations ; and (5) the prosecutor improperly suggested a harsh sentence for the good of the community.

Bruner v Com., 2004-SC-000312-MR - Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

A jury of the Jefferson Circuit Court convicted Appellant, Larry D . Bruner, of two counts of sodomy in the first degree and two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree in connection with the sexual molestation of a nine-year-old child. For these crimes, Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant now appeals to this Court as a matter of right. Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b) . We affirm Appellant's convictions .