Ky. Supreme Court decisions for April, 2006 posted on Lawreader
Important cases IN KY. SUPREME COURT DECISION ISSUED APRIL 20, 2006 – FOR SYNOPSIS AND FULL TEXT GO TO WWW.LAWREADER.COM.
1 Reinstatement of Tim Futrell denied.
2 to complete the offense (of unlawful transaction with a minor), the minor must consent to and actively participate in the activity.”
3 The trial court did not err in denying directed verdict
4 the trial court erred in admitting certain portions of Dr. Spevak’s (expert) testimony, as its prejudicial effect was far outweighed by its probative value
5 Retailer who sold gun to l8 year old in violation of Federal Law not protected by intervening criminal act of the l8 year old in shooting a friend. “ this Court has rejected “any all-inclusive general rule that . . . criminal acts of third parties . . . relieve the original negligent party from liability .”
6 evidence of another allegedly similar incident of sexual abuse by Appellee against his niece, S .B., was error.
7 requested instruction on fourth degree assault was properly denied .
8 where a .statute both declares the unlawful act and specifies the civil remedy available, the aggrieved party is limited to the remedy provided by the statute. General damages are not available when a specific remedy is provided such as in this case
9 We decline to hold that whenever one or more convictions of multiple jointly-tried offenses are reversed, every other conviction of a jointly-tried offense must also be reversed for resentencing.
10 Harry D . Williams is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky for a period of one hundred eighty-one (181) days
11 a Bruton problem may be cured by an appropriate redaction of the co-defendant’s confession, so long as “the confession is redacted to eliminate not only the defendant’s name, but any reference to his or her existence .”
14 the jury could have also believed that he did not steal the firearms. Without stealing the firearms, he would have only committed the offense of criminal trespass .
16 the denial of Appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was not “arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles
17 18 Each case presents differing facts and the trial judge must always be prepared to craft a set of instructions that are determined by those facts – It was error for the trial judge to overrule the motion for a continuance because it denied Grimes the opportunity to present a defense
19 no error in the trial court’s application of KRS 532.080
20 DUI -Can a certified copy of a breath-alcohol machine’s maintenance and test records be admitted into evidence to show compliance with 500 KAR 8:020 § 2(1) without in-court testimony by the breath-alcohol technician who performed the maintenance and tests? Ans. Yes. (Crawford v. Washington does not apply to the issue of admission of Breath Test Machine operating records.)
21 To succeed on a claim under RCr 10.26 the error must be so profound as to approach denial of due process rights.
22 We know of no rule which allows an issue to be partially preserved – an issue is either preserved or it is not.
“[t]he appellant could not sit by and see the juror sleeping, without asking the court to arouse him from his slumbers, and then complain about it after the trial was over.
23 the trial court did not abuse its discretion or commit any errors, either individually or collectively, which rise to the level of reversible or palpable error.
24. (It was not error for) a state police detective testified as both a fact witness and an expert witness .
25 ALJ did not err by considering a medical report that the employer submitted pursuant to an order to which the claimant failed to object
26 evidence did not relate to
the scalp lacerations or their effects; therefore, it did not warrant reopening that portion of the claim on any ground
27 28 The evidence in this case clearly did not rise to the level of that in Fawbush, supra , and would not have compelled a decision in the claimant’s favor had
one not been made.
29 Having concluded that the function of CR 76 .25(4)(a) is not to make the Board an indispensable party to a petition for review, we reverse and remand
30the statements made by N.E .G. to both Griffey and Blackerby were admissible under KRE 803(4), the hearsay exception for statements made for purposes of medical treatment or diagnosis, even though Griffey was not a physician
31) Kevin Lee Nesbitt is publicly reprimanded
32, Mark Blair Geller, is hereby suspended from the practice of law
33 We hold that a party may appeal the decision of a trial court, which implicates any of the enumerated items in KRS 417.220(1), utilizing either a motion for interlocutory relief pursuant to CR 65.07, or a notice of appeal pursuant to CR 73, as long as that party fulfills the requirements and meets the burdens in so making the appeal
34 Kenneth Eugene Rylee, Jr., shall be and is hereby Permanently Disbarred from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.