Joseph E. Lambert

Lesley Ryan Cornett was convicted of first-degree possession of a controlled substance after police found LSD in his vehicle during a traffic stop, though he testified he believed the substance was Suboxone. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Kentucky Supreme Court granted review to address whether the possession statutes require proof that the defendant knew the specific identity of the controlled substance. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the statutes require the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly and unlawfully possessed a controlled substance but do not require proof that the defendant knew the particular identity of that substance. The court reasoned that the statutory language focuses on knowledge of possessing a controlled substance generally, distinguishing this case from precedents involving belief that the substance was not controlled at all.

criminal law

In this case, Cornelius Baskin was convicted by a jury of first-degree aggravated trafficking in fentanyl, first-degree trafficking in methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, alcohol intoxication in a public place, and being a first-degree persistent felony offender, resulting in a 25-year prison sentence. On appeal, Baskin challenged the trial court's denial of his Batson motion to a peremptory strike of a juror, among other issues. The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the Commonwealth failed to provide a sufficient race-neutral reason for the strike and that the trial court erred in overruling the challenge, constituting structural error. The court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, while rejecting Baskin's other claims on the merits. The core reasoning centered on the three-step Batson analysis requiring evaluation of whether the prosecutor's explanation was pretextual.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case concerned claims by the estate and minor children of Joshua Fuson against Mercy Regional Emergency Medical System and an EMT for alleged negligence and wrongful death arising from medical care provided during a 2018 incident that led to Fuson's death. The minor children asserted a separate loss of parental consortium claim. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding the claims barred by the statute of limitations under KRS 413.140(1) and not tolled for the minors. The Court of Appeals reversed as to the minors' consortium claim, and the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed that reversal. The Court held that the plain language of KRS 413.170(1) tolls the limitations period for minors' claims, permitting the children to prosecute their independent loss of parental consortium claim at any time.

proceduretorts & liabilityfamily law

R.L.P. was charged with his father's murder but found incompetent to stand trial and unlikely to regain competency, leading the Commonwealth to petition for his involuntary commitment under the new KRS Chapter 202C rather than the prior Chapters 202A or 202B. He appealed, raising due process and equal protection challenges to Chapter 202C along with claims that the enacting legislation violated sections 46 and 51 of the Kentucky Constitution. The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the commitment order, holding that the statutory procedures satisfied constitutional requirements and that the bill was validly enacted. The core reasoning was that Chapter 202C provided adequate safeguards, including counsel, a guardian ad litem, notice, and a two-phase hearing process, while addressing the gap where individuals charged with serious offenses could not otherwise be committed if they could not benefit from treatment.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved sitting Kentucky circuit judge Julie Muth Goodman challenging impeachment proceedings brought by the state House of Representatives, which were based on a petition alleging abuse of discretion in several cases, some still pending. The Supreme Court of Kentucky granted her petition for a supervisory writ, declared House Resolution 124 and the articles of impeachment void ab initio, and enjoined any further impeachment action against her. The court reasoned that its constitutional supervisory authority over the Court of Justice was properly invoked because the legislature's actions attempted to supersede the judicial branch's role in supervising judges and correcting errors through the appellate process.

procedure

The case concerned a Catholic church's application for a conditional use permit and setback variances to construct an outdoor grotto shrine with a plaza and path on leased land next to its existing building in a residential zoning district. The Park Hills Board of Adjustment denied the request because the zoning ordinance limited churches and their accessory uses to locations adjacent to arterial streets, and the church's site was on a collector street. The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the Court of Appeals' holding that the denial did not violate the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), reaching that conclusion on different grounds from the lower court. The decision turned on the application of RLUIPA's substantial burden and equal terms provisions to the facts of the zoning enforcement.

religious libertypropertyprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by the administrator of Emma Hayes's estate against a nursing home and its operators and staff, alleging negligence, medical negligence, wrongful death, and related claims arising from her care after contracting COVID-19 in the facility, which allegedly led to her respiratory failure and death. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the defendants based on immunity under Kentucky's COVID immunity statute, KRS 39A.275, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed, holding that the lower court had erred in granting summary judgment because material facts regarding the care provided remained in dispute and discovery had been limited, and it remanded the case for further proceedings.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved the appeal of Jason Baldwin's convictions in Madison Circuit Court on one count each of first-degree rape, first-degree sodomy, distribution of obscene material to a minor, use of a minor in a sexual performance, and first-degree sexual abuse, plus sixty-eight counts of possession of matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor, resulting in a life sentence. The charges stemmed from allegations that Baldwin sexually abused his neighbor's four-year-old daughter while babysitting her and showed her an obscene image on his phone. On appeal as a matter of right, the Kentucky Supreme Court addressed multiple issues, including as a matter of first impression whether raw machine-extracted cellphone data constitutes testimonial hearsay implicating the Confrontation Clause. The court affirmed the convictions in full, holding that such data is not testimonial hearsay and rejecting the other claims of error.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Sandra Norris, as administratrix of her late husband's estate, suing The Lantern Alzheimer's care facility and related parties for negligence, medical negligence, wrongful death, and related claims after her husband suffered falls, weight loss, and a bedsore during his residency. The facility moved to compel arbitration under a mandatory agreement signed by Sandra as conservator when admitting her incapacitated husband, but the Fayette Circuit Court denied the motion, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Kentucky Supreme Court granted review and affirmed. The court held that a spouse's authority under KRS 311.631 to make health care decisions for an incapacitated person—defined in KRS 311.621 as consenting to or withdrawing consent for medical procedures, treatments, or interventions—does not extend to signing an arbitration agreement as a condition of admission. Because Sandra lacked authority to bind her husband to the contract, the arbitration agreement was invalid under generally applicable contract principles, and the motion to compel was properly denied.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

This case concerned a dispute between the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #4, its member Christopher Morrow, and the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government over whether LFUCG was obligated to arbitrate a grievance under their collective bargaining agreement. The agreement's Article 11 required arbitration of controversies about the meaning and application of its provisions, including Article 19's provisions on legal defense in tort actions arising from employment and potential reimbursement if the action was outside the scope of employment. Morrow faced civil claims from an alleged off-duty assault and sought defense representation, which LFUCG provided while reserving rights to seek reimbursement; the union then grieved the scope-of-employment determination. The circuit court and Court of Appeals granted summary judgment to LFUCG, holding arbitration was not required, but the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the CBA's plain terms mandated arbitration of the dispute even though any arbitrator decision would be advisory only.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned whether the Louisville & Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) could claim immunity under Kentucky's Claims Against Local Governments Act (CALGA) in a lawsuit brought by Jennifer Albright after her son drowned in an underground drainage pipe owned and maintained by MSD. Albright alleged negligence in the design, maintenance, and lack of warnings or safety features around the pipe and drainage easement. The circuit court granted summary judgment to MSD on immunity grounds, but the Court of Appeals reversed; the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed that reversal, holding that MSD is subject to CALGA yet not shielded from liability for the specific negligent maintenance and failure-to-warn claims at issue. The Court reasoned that the immunity applies only to legislative or quasi-legislative decisions, not to operational negligence in maintaining the sewer system that created the dangerous condition.

torts & liability

Larayna Manning was convicted of complicity to murder and complicity to first-degree robbery after evidence showed her involvement in the shooting death of Calvin Taylor at his home, including city surveillance videos of vehicles linked to her, crack cocaine found in a minivan associated with her family, and DNA evidence at the scene. She was sentenced to life imprisonment and appealed her convictions to the Supreme Court of Kentucky as a matter of right, raising issues including improper impeachment of a witness and the prosecutor's use of her son's Alford plea. The court affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that any trial errors were harmless given the strength of the DNA evidence supporting the jury's verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

William Sloss was convicted of murder, abuse of a corpse, and being a first-degree persistent felony offender, receiving a fifty-year sentence. On direct appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court, he argued that his Sixth Amendment right to be present at trial was violated because the trial court did not hold a hearing under RCr 8.28(1) or obtain his personal waiver of presence after he chose to be absent, and he also challenged the denial of a mistrial, directed verdict motions, and certain evidentiary rulings on prior bad acts and hearsay. The court affirmed the convictions in full. It reasoned that Sloss's absence was voluntary, that the record supported proceeding without him, and that the remaining claims did not establish reversible error.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns an appeal by Circuit Judge James T. Jameson from a Judicial Conduct Commission ruling that found him guilty of seven counts of misconduct related to his efforts to establish a community corrections board, a nonprofit funding arm, and an ankle monitoring program for defendants in his circuit, including interactions with fiscal courts and private vendors. The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the Commission failed to prove misconduct under Counts IV, V, and VI and some allegations under Counts I and III, but that the proven misconduct under Counts I, II, III, and VII justified removal from office. The court reasoned that the Commission met its burden of proof on the remaining counts through evidence of improper involvement in executive functions and conflicts, yet concluded that the Commission lacks authority under the Kentucky Constitution and rules to impose permanent removal rather than removal for the remainder of a term. The topics selected reflect the case's focus on judicial oversight of criminal proceedings and related procedural rules.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned the application of Linda Jane Evanswood to restore her license to practice law in Kentucky, which had been suspended for failure to pay annual dues from 2005 to 2006. The Kentucky Bar Association's Board of Governors unanimously recommended reinstatement after reviewing her completed application, which included full payment of dues and fees, three supporting affidavits from bar members in good standing, and confirmation of no pending disciplinary matters. The court adopted the Board's recommendation, finding that all legal requirements under the Supreme Court Rules had been satisfied with no other impediments, and ordered her restoration to practice effective immediately along with assessment of costs.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved disciplinary charges against attorney Mark Joseph Smith, who was suspended from practicing law for 15 days but appeared in court on behalf of clients in Jefferson and Nelson Counties and may have filed a lawsuit during that period before filing the required compliance affidavit. Smith admitted to violating SCR 3.130-4.1 by making a false statement and SCR 3.130-5.5 by practicing law while suspended. The Kentucky Bar Association had no objection to a negotiated sanction of public reprimand conditioned on attending a remedial ethics CLE program. The court approved the sanction, citing consistency with the similar case of Wright v. Kentucky Bar Association and the adequacy of the proposed discipline under SCR 3.480(2).

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned Kentucky attorney Gerald V. Roberts, who faced a disciplinary charge from the Kentucky Bar Association under SCR 3.130-8.3(b) after his arrest and Alford plea to second-degree indecent exposure, a Class B misdemeanor. Roberts moved for a public reprimand as sanction, and the KBA did not object. The court granted the reprimand, finding that the plea constituted a conviction for a criminal act reflecting on the lawyer's fitness, consistent with prior disciplinary precedents involving misdemeanor convictions such as harassing communications or wanton endangerment. Mitigating factors included the absence of prior discipline and Roberts's cooperative attitude during proceedings, along with assessment of costs against him.

criminal law

In Kentucky Bar Association v. Bock, the Kentucky Supreme Court addressed charges of professional misconduct against attorney Valerie Lynn Bock stemming from her representation of client James Wiseman in a divorce matter. Bock accepted a fee but failed to file the petition, communicate with the client, or refund the unearned fee, and she did not respond to the subsequent bar complaint or disciplinary charges. The court found Bock guilty of five violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including failures in diligence, communication, and honesty, and suspended her license to practice law for thirty days while ordering restitution and payment of costs.

procedure

This case involved seven consolidated default disciplinary proceedings against Kentucky attorney Maxwell Lee Hammond II, who faced charges of failing to diligently represent clients, charging unreasonable or excessive fees, not returning unearned fees, failing to communicate with clients, mishandling client funds, and related violations of the Supreme Court Rules in matters including criminal defense, Social Security appeals, and personal injury cases. The Board of Governors found Hammond guilty of multiple counts across the files, considered his prior disciplinary history of private admonitions for similar conduct, and recommended a five-year suspension along with restitution and costs. The Kentucky Supreme Court accepted the recommendation and imposed the five-year suspension effective from the order date, with conditions including client notifications, cancellation of advertising, and restrictions on reinstatement until any claims or judgments are resolved. The court reasoned that the pattern of misconduct warranted this sanction given that lesser measures had not deterred the behavior.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Kentucky Bar Association disciplinary proceedings against attorney Raymond Brian Rice, who was convicted in 2002 of two felony counts of false statement as to identity for committing credit card fraud by obtaining and using cards in another person's name, resulting in over $14,000 in unauthorized purchases; Rice committed the offenses while serving as an assistant county attorney, later fled the jurisdiction while charges were pending, and returned without contacting authorities. The Board of Governors recommended a five-year suspension, but the Kentucky Supreme Court reviewed the matter on its own initiative to consider whether permanent disbarment was appropriate. The court permanently disbarred Rice, citing precedent treating criminal financial misconduct involving dishonesty by attorneys as warranting disbarment, along with aggravating factors including Rice's flight from the jurisdiction, failure to accept responsibility, and explicit denial that his criminal conduct affected his fitness to practice law as a prosecutor. The decision also ordered Rice to pay costs and provide required notices of his disbarment.

criminal law