In Baker v. Commonwealth, the appellant was convicted of first-degree possession of a controlled substance and being a persistent felony offender after Lexington police officers, while patrolling a high-crime area, ordered him to remove his hands from his pockets, prompting him to discard a crack pipe and foil packet containing cocaine. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and the denial of the motion to suppress, concluding that the officer's order amounted to a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The court held that the seizure was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, as the late hour, high-crime location, appellant's presence with a known prostitute, baggy clothing, and refusal to comply with the initial request provided specific and articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and a need to ensure officer safety. Relying on Terry v. Ohio, the court determined that the evidence was not the fruit of an unlawful seizure and was therefore admissible.
This case concerned a dispute over spousal maintenance awarded to Theresa Leveridge following her divorce from Phillip Leveridge after an 18.5-year marriage. The trial court granted Theresa maintenance for 12 years at decreasing rates, along with child support and attorney fees, based on her need for retraining and the income disparity between the parties. The Court of Appeals vacated the maintenance award as excessive, but the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that the trial court had not abused its discretion under KRS 403.200 and that appellate courts should not substitute their judgment for the trial court's when supported by substantial evidence.
This case involved Ernest Rogers, who was convicted after a joint trial of murder, first-degree robbery, attempted murder, kidnapping, and attempted rape, and sentenced to death for the murder committed during the robbery. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded for retrial, ruling that the admission of co-defendant Nakia Dillard's redacted videotaped statement violated Rogers' Confrontation Clause rights under Bruton v. United States because the redactions were insufficient to prevent clear implication of Rogers. The court further held that permitting the defendants to display their fingernails to the jury was error, as the evidence lacked relevance and could mislead the jury without any foundational showing. These evidentiary rulings formed the basis for reversal, with the opinion emphasizing constitutional protections against uncross-examined statements in joint trials.
This case arose from a 1994 natural gas explosion in Bowling Green, Kentucky, that destroyed four homes, damaged personal property, and injured two people, leading multiple plaintiffs to sue Atmos Energy (WKG) along with Bowling Green Municipal Utilities, Scotty's Contracting, and GRW Engineers for negligence and punitive damages. The trial court granted the plaintiffs a total of sixteen peremptory challenges and allowed the jury to award $450,000 in punitive damages against WKG only. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the extra peremptory challenges violated CR 47.03 because the plaintiffs lacked antagonistic interests and that the evidence was insufficient to support punitive damages. The Kentucky Supreme Court reviewed these rulings, focusing on whether the trial court's allocation of challenges was proper under the civil rule and whether the record supported submitting the punitive damages claim to the jury.
The case concerned whether Kentucky still recognized a common-law cause of action for breach of promise to marry. Plaintiff Suzanne Barkes sued defendant Alvin Gilbert after their engagement ended, alleging she had relied on his promise by retiring early and moving in with him. The trial court dismissed the claim on summary judgment, the Court of Appeals reinstated it, and the Kentucky Supreme Court granted review. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and abolished the action, holding that it was an outdated hybrid of contract and tort rooted in an era when marriage was treated primarily as an economic transaction and that the majority of states had already eliminated it by statute or judicial decision.
The case involved appellants challenging the constitutionality of Kentucky House Bill 250, a 1994 law enacting wide-ranging health care reforms including creation of a Health Policy Board, provider arbitration, certificate of need procedures, insurance reforms, and a provider tax. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the Franklin Circuit Court's ruling that the bill was constitutional, rejecting nine separate challenges based on sections 59, 47, and 51 of the Kentucky Constitution, equal protection, separation of powers, privacy rights, the Open Meetings Act, and the federal supremacy clause. The court's reasoning centered on prior precedent upholding a similar provider tax, findings that the bill was not special legislation or an improper revenue measure, that no unconstitutional delegation of gubernatorial power occurred, and that procedural and substantive requirements were satisfied.