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.

Tabor v. Com., 2002-SC-000538-MR -Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Jason L. Tabor, was convicted of first-degree manslaughter and received a sentence of twenty years' imprisonment. His appeal comes before this Court as a matter of right. Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b) . Appellant asserts three trial court errors: 1) a prejudicial delay in pretrial discovery, 2) the improper testimony of the prosecutor, and 3) the improper inclusion of first-degree manslaughter in the jury instructions . We affirm.

Talley v. Com., 2003-SC-000869-MR - Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Thomas Talley III, was convicted in Jefferson Circuit Court of reckless homicide, tampering with physical evidence and being a persistent felony offender in the first degree. He received concurrent sentences totaling twenty years . Appellant argues that the trial court committed reversible error in five instances and appeals to this Court as a matter of right

Tamayo-Mora v Com.,2004-SC-000510-MR - Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

Appellant was adjudged guilty of one count of first degree sodomy and two counts of first degree sexual abuse and given sentences of twenty years, five years and five years to run consecutively for a total sentence of thirty years . Appellant appeals to this Court as a matter of right asserting that the trial court erred in (1) not upholding his Batson challenge to the Commonwealth's peremptory strike of an African-American juror, even though the trial court found a race-neutral explanation for the strike, (2) in allowing evidence of his escape from the home incarceration program after he was compelled to give a DNA sample for comparison testing, (3) in allowing the Commonwealth to call expert witnesses since no notice of their intended use at trial was given - other than copies of their reports and (4) in failing to prohibit the Commonwealth's DNA expert from testifying as to when you would expect to find traces of skin DNA on a bath towel. For the reasons set out hereinafter, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Taylor v. Com, 2004-SC-000018-MR - To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

Once again this Court is faced with deciding an issue that arises from one of the most heinous and highly publicized murder cases in Kentucky's recent history. Victor Taylor was convicted of the murder, kidnap, and robbery of two Trinity High School students as they were on their way to attend a high school football game . Taylor was also convicted of sodomizing one of the students . As a result, he received two death sentences for the murder convictions, two death sentences for the kidnapping convictions,' and a total of sixty years imprisonment for the two counts of robbery and one count of sodomy. This appeal comes to this Court upon denial of his CR 60 .02 motion for a new trial .

Taylor v. Com., 2004-SC-000018-MR - To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

Once again this Court is faced with deciding an issue that arises from one of the most heinous and highly publicized murder cases in Kentucky's recent history. Victor Taylor was convicted of the murder, kidnap, and robbery of two Trinity High School students as they were on their way to attend a high school football game . Taylor was also convicted of sodomizing one of the students. As a result, he received two death sentences for the murder convictions, two death sentences for the kidnapping convictions,' and a total of sixty years imprisonment for the two counts of robbery and one count of sodomy. This appeal comes to this Court upon denial of his CR 60 .02 motion for a new trial.

Terry v. Com., 2003-SC-000237-MR - To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Denarrius Terry, was convicted by a Logan Circuit Court jury of murder, robbery in the first degree, and wanton endangerment in the first degree, and sentenced to a total of forty-five years in prison. He appeals to this Court as a matter of right, Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b), asserting five claims of reversible error, viz : (1) admission of hearsay statements of a nontestifying accomplice ; (2) limitation of defense crossexamination of an alleged eyewitness; (3) excessive examination by the trial judge of another alleged eyewitness; (4) admission of juvenile misdemeanor adjudications during the penalty phase of the trial ; and (5) admission of improper victim impact evidence during the penalty phase of the trial . We reverse and remand for a new trial primarily because of the admission into evidence of a nontestifying accomplice's out-of-court statements that inculpated Appellant as the perpetrator of the offenses . We will also address other issues that are likely to recur upon retrial. Sager v. Commonwealth , 998 S .W .2d 439, 445 (Ky. 1999) .

Thacker v. Com., 2004-SC-000517-MR -Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

The Appellant, Darrell Thacker, was charged and convicted of the offense of murder and sentenced to 25 years in the state penitentiary . He appeals to this Court as a matter of right, Ky . Const . § 110(2)(b) . As grounds, he argues that the trial court erred, (1) in overruling Appellant's Motion for Change of Venue due to pretrial publicity, (2) by failing to grant Appellant a continuance on the morning of trial, since his half-sister had recanted on a portion of her testimony which would have been advantageous to the Appellant, (3) in failing to strike jurors Archer, Rowe and Sawyer for cause, (4) by granting the parties an additional peremptory strike each upon disclosure of one juror's bias to the court after the initial peremptory strikes had been completed, (5) by failing to grant Appellant's Motion for Mistrial upon his half-sister's statement that she believed he was lying about the murder, (6) by allowing irrelevant and inflammatory victim impact evidence during the guilt phase of the trial, (7) in allowing improper arguments by the prosecution, vilifying the Appellant, (8) by allowing the bailiff to take charge of the jury for deliberation without being sworn as required by RCr 9.68, (9) excluding the press from the courtroom when the jury returned to review select evidence of witnesses, during its deliberations, (10) in improperly charging the jury when it was allegedly deadlocked, (11) in denying Appellant's Motion for New Trial based upon undisclosed juror bias and (12) in that all the aforementioned errors were cumulative in nature, the Appellant was denied a fair trial. For the reasons hereinafter set out, the Appellant's conviction is hereby affirmed .

Thomas V Com., 2003-SC-000989-MR - To Be Published, Reversing and Remanding -- PDF

During the early morning hours of October 9, 2002, Appellant, Mark Leo Thomas, and the two complaining witnesses, Robert Beckwith and Tilden Linker, were involved in an altercation outside the R Place Pub, a bar in Louisville, Kentucky . During the altercation, Appellant drew a handgun and shot Beckwith once in the leg and Linker three times in the hip. Appellant was also injured, suffering fractures of both cheekbones, his jaw, and his left and right maxillary sinuses, as well as injuries to several teeth, which required extraction. Appellant claimed Beckwith and Linker attacked him and that he shot them in self-protection. Beckwith and Linker claimed Appellant shot them without provocation and that other patrons of the bar primarily inflicted Appellant's injuries while subduing and disarming him after the shootings. The only eyewitness to any of this activity was Jeremy Walls, who came to the bar looking for a friend just as Appellant, Beckwith, and Linker were leaving . Walls testified that as he was entering the bar, he saw either Beckwith or Linker shove Appellant; and that as he was leaving the bar less than a minute later, he saw Appellant shoot Beckwith and Linker .

Thompson v Com., 2004-SC-000217-DG- To Be Published,Reversing and Remanding -- PDF

This case comes to us on discretionary review of the Court of Appeals' opinion affirming the judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court, which denied Appellant's claim for RCr 11 .42 relief. We granted review to determine whether the lower court erred in finding the Appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel, and thus was not entitled to a new trial . After reviewing the record, we reverse the Court of Appeals, vacate Appellant's convictions and sentence, and remand this case back to the trial court for a new trial.

Thompson v. Com. 2004-SC-001070-DG - Not To Be Published,Affirming -- PDF -

A jury of the Jefferson Circuit Court convicted Appellant of Trafficking in a Controlled Substance, Subsequent Offense (Cocaine); Failure to be in Possession of . Operator's License on Demand ; and being a Persistent Felony Offender, First Degree. For these crimes, Appellant was sentenced to a total of twenty years imprisonment. Appellant now appeals to this Court as a matter of right . Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b) . For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm Appellant's convictions .

Tillman v Com., 2004-SC-000605-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.

Trotter v Com., 2003-SC-000577-MR -Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Eddie Trotter, was convicted of Murder and Tampering with Physical Evidence and was sentenced to twenty-two years in prison . On this appeal, he claims that the trial court erred (1) in allowing the introduction of evidence of his prior bad acts, (2) in not granting a directed verdict and allowing the Commonwealth to shift the burden of proof, (3) in not suppressing his taped statement to the police, (4) in allowing the indictment to stand when the prosecutor failed to present material evidence to the grand jury, and (5) in not instructing the jury as to imperfect self-defense and extreme emotional disturbance. Because we find no merit in Appellant's claims, we affirm his convictions .

Tucker v Com., 2004-SC-000411-MR - Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

This appeal is from a judgment based on a jury verdict that convicted Tucker of three counts of first-degree sodomy, one count of second-degree sodomy, one count of third-degree sodomy and two counts of first-degree sexual abuse . He was sentenced to a total of sixty-one years in prison . The questions presented are whether the testimony of the examining physician exceeded the scope of KRE 803(4) ; whether the defendant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the physician ; whether Tucker was denied the right to refute hearsay testimony; whether investigative hearsay was improperly introduced into evidence ; whether unqualified expert testimony was erroneously admitted; whether evidence of a prior consistent statement should have been excluded; whether improper rebuttal evidence was allowed; whether the trial judge exhibited bias toward the Commonwealth; whether the defendant was denied his right to present a defense; and, whether there was cumulative error.

Turner v Com,2001-SC-001054-MR -To Be Published, Affirming In Part Vacating and Remanding In Part-- PDF

Appellant, Naomi Riley Turner, was found guilty of wanton murder, burglary in the second degree, and theft by unlawful taking . She was sentenced to twenty-five years, ten years, and five years, respectively, to run consecutively for a total of forty years. Appellant now appeals as a matter of right, raising six claims of error. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.