2007 Kentucky Supreme Court Opinions Index |
|
|
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.
Heard v Com., 2004-SC-000551-DG - Published, Affirming in Part and Reversing in Part-- PDF
Appellant, Marquis Deron Heard, was convicted of criminal trespass in the first degree and of second-degree assault, a class D felony . His convictions stem from an altercation with Andreal (Angel) Saunders, the mother of his infant daughter, while she and the child were visiting the home of her grandmother, Sara Saunders . ` The principal issue is whether Appellant's confrontation clause rights were infringed.
Hill v Com., 2005-SC-000767-MR
-- Not Published,
Affirming -- PDF
Hinkle v Com., 2006-SC-000397-MR & 2005-SC-000342-MR -- Not Published,
Affirming -- PDF
Hudson v Com., 2006-SC-000269-MR
-- Not Published,
Affirming -- PDF
Appellant, Robert J . Hill, was convicted by a Grayson Circuit Court jury in
September 2005, of: (1) trafficking in a controlled substance, first degree, (2)
possession of drug paraphernalia, subsequent offender, and (3) being a
persistent felony offender, second degree. For these crimes, Hill was sentenced
to twenty-five years in prison . Hill now appeals to this Court as a matter of right.
Ky. Const. §110(2)(b). He asserts five arguments in his appeal: (1) that there was
insufficient evidence for a jury to convict him of trafficking in a controlled
substance, first degree, (2) that the trial court erred in admitting testimony about
Hill's name on court papers without producing the papers according to the best
evidence rule, (3) that he was denied due process by the Commonwealth's
failure to collect the court papers and bag in which drug paraphernalia was
found, (4) that the trial court provided faulty instructions on possession of drug
paraphernalia, and (5) that he was denied his right to a fair trial when the
Commonwealth's attorney was permitted to make arguments in violation of the
"Golden Rule." For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm Hill's convictions.
A jury of the Knox Circuit Court convicted Appellant, Oliver Hinkle, of the
intentional murder of his estranged wife . For this crime, Appellant was
sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. Appellant appealed as a matter of
right, and on February 23, 2006, this Court remanded Appellant's case to the
Knox Circuit Court for a determination as to whether a retrospective competency
hearing was constitutionally permissible . Hinkle v. Commonwealth , 2005-SC-342
(rendered February 23, 2006) . On April 21, 2006, the Knox Circuit Court issued
an Opinion and Order finding that a retrospective competency hearing was
constitutionally permissible and that Appellant was competent at the time of his
February 2005 trial. Appellant now appeals this order; and for the reasons set
forth herein, we affirm.
Glenn Anthony Hudson entered a conditional guilty plea to the wanton
murder of a two-year-old girl and received a sentence of life in prison . At the time of the
guilty plea, Hudson reserved the right to appeal the trial court's rulings denying (1) his
motion to suppress incriminating statements, arguing that these statements were
coerced from him by detectives; and (2) denying his motion in limine to exclude
evidence of the girl's vaginal injuries, arguing that the highly prejudicial nature of this
evidence outweighed its marginal relevance . Finding no error in the trial court's rulings
on either of these issues, we affirm.
Return
to the Main Table of Cases