due process clause in Kentucky

2024There, we reiterated that “[t]he purpose of a ‘missing evidence’ instruction is to cure any Due Process violation attributable to the loss or destruction of exculpatory evidence by a less onerous remedy than dismissal or the suppression of relevant evidence.” Id. at 810 .

2021Regarding Simpson’s alleged Brady violation, the law is clear that the intentional destruction of exculpatory evidence by the Commonwealth is a Due Process violation requiring “(1) dismissal, (2) exclusion of the Commonwealth’s evidence, or (3) an instruction permitting the jury to infer that the missing evidence, if available, would be adverse to the Commonwealth and favorable to the defendant.” Estep v. Commonwealth, 64 S.W.3d 805, 809 (Ky. 2002).

2020In Biggers, supra, the United States Supreme Court established a two- part test for determining if there is a due process violation, which the Supreme Court of Kentucky summarized in Wilson v. Commonwealth, 695 S.W.2d 854 (Ky. 1985).

2020We review a trial judge’s ruling on admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion.27 The trial judge abuses their discretion if the decision was “arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.”28 The United States Supreme Court has established that there is a two-part analysis used when determining if the due process clause may have been violated by impermissibly suggestive evidence.29 This two-pronged analysis has been adopted in Kentucky, and the first prong requires this Court to “determine whether the confrontation procedures employed by the police were ‘

2022McPherson v. Commonwealth, 360 S.W.3d 207, 217 (Ky. 2012).

2016In McPherson v. Commonwealth, 360 S.W.3d 207 (Ky. 2012), we identified three elements that must be proven to establish a due process violation with respect to missing evidence, which if preserved and subjected to testing, might have produced results that exonerated the defendant.

2016According to Lanham, "[t]he entire case rested on the credibility of the girls, and mainly that of [Amy]." Due Process "In order to establish a due process violation, the evidence must either be intentionally destroyed, or destroyed inadvertently outside normal practices." Tamme v. Commonwealth, 759 S.W.2d 51, 54 (Ky. 1988).

2016According to Lanham, "[t]he entire case rested on the credibility of the girls, and mainly that of [Amy]." Due Process "In order to establish a due process violation, the evidence must either be intentionally destroyed, or destroyed inadvertently outside normal practices." Tamme v. Commonwealth, 759 S.W.2d 51, 54 (Ky. 1988).

2023“In Biggers, the Supreme Court set forth a two-prong due process test for considering an identification by a witness following impermissible suggestive pretrial procedures such as a photo array or line-up.” Id. at 797-98 .

2017Id. at 798 , “In Biggers, the Supreme Court set forth a two-prong due process test for considering an identification by a witness following impermissible suggestive pretrial procedures such as a photo array or line-up.” Id. at 797-98 .

2012Alleged Exculpatory Evidence After trial, Appellant filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion for a new trial arguing, among other things, a due process violation under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

2012Alleged Exculpatory Evidence After trial, Appellant filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion for a new trial arguing, among other things, a due process violation under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

2026This standard, perhaps with minor modification, reflects the due-process standard -14- established in Arizona v. Youngblood, [ 488 U.S. 51 , 109 S. Ct. 333 , 102 L.

2026This standard, perhaps with minor modification, reflects the due-process standard -14- established in Arizona v. Youngblood, [ 488 U.S. 51 , 109 S. Ct. 333 , 102 L.

2016"Furthermore, the lost evidence must 'possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before it was destroyed."' Id. (citing California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 489 (1984)).

2016"Furthermore, the lost evidence must 'possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before it was destroyed."' Id. (citing California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 489 (1984)).

2022Ed. 2d 356 -9- (1985). “[S]o long as the conditions or the degree of confinement to which the prisoner is subjected do not exceed the sentence which was imposed and are not otherwise in violation of the Constitution, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not subject an inmate’s treatment by prison authorities to judicial oversight.” Mahoney v. Carter, 938 S.W.2d 575 (Ky. 1997).

2011Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 , 105 S.Ct. 2768, 2773 , 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985); see also Webb, 223 S.W.3d at 117-18 . “[SJo long as the conditions or the degree of confinement to which the prisoner is subjected do not exceed the sentence which was imposed and are not otherwise in violation of the Constitution, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not subject an inmate’s treatment by prison authorities to judicial oversight.” Mahoney v. Carter, 938 S.W.2d 575, 576 (Ky.1997); see also McMillen, 233 S.W.3d at 205 . (1) advance written notice of the disciplinary charges; (2)

2012Rather, the due process inquiry focuses only on the opportunity to be heard, Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 542 , 105 S.Ct. 1487 ; that right, however, may be waived.

2012Rather, the due process inquiry focuses only on the opportunity to be heard, Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 542 , 105 S.Ct. 1487 ; that right, however, may be waived.

2025Moreover, this Court has long clearly held that: “pursuant to both the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and KRS 625.080(3) and 620.100(1), that the parental rights of a child may not be terminated unless that parent has been represented by counsel at every critical stage of the proceedings.” R.V. v. Commonwealth, Dep’t for Health and Family Services, 242 S.W.3d 669, 672-73 (Ky. App. 2007).

2020During those hearings, the trial court entered erroneous factual findings regarding the 30 See Cleveland Bd of Ed. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 541 (1985) (“[T]he right to due process is conferred, not by legislative grace, but by constitutional guarantee”). 31 242 S.W.3d 669, 672-73 (Ky. App. 2007). 13 length of time the child had been in foster care and the Cabinet changed its goal from returning the child to permanent foster care placement.

2022McMillen v. Kentucky Dep’t of Corr., 233 S.W.3d 203, 205 (Ky. App. 2007).

2011Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 , 105 S.Ct. 2768, 2773 , 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985); see also Webb, 223 S.W.3d at 117-18 . “[SJo long as the conditions or the degree of confinement to which the prisoner is subjected do not exceed the sentence which was imposed and are not otherwise in violation of the Constitution, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not subject an inmate’s treatment by prison authorities to judicial oversight.” Mahoney v. Carter, 938 S.W.2d 575, 576 (Ky.1997); see also McMillen, 233 S.W.3d at 205 . (1) advance written notice of the disciplinary charges; (2)

2021The right is further rooted in the due process clause “when a defendant is not actually being confronted by witnesses or evidence against him.” Watkins v. Commonwealth, 105 S.W.3d 449, 452 (Ky. 2003) (citing United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522 , 105 S. Ct. 1482 , 84 L.

2013The United States Supreme Court has explained that a defendant has a right to be present “whenever his presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge ... [and it] is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only.” 105 S.W.3d 449, 452-53 (Ky.2003) (emphasis added) (citations omitted) (quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 107-08 , 54 S.Ct. 330 , 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934), overruled on other grounds by Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 , 84 S.Ct. 1489 ,

1978See American Beauty Homes Corp. v. Louisville and Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Com’n, Ky., 379 S.W.2d 450 (1964); Morris v. City of Catlettsburg, Ky., 437 S.W.2d 753 (1969); City of Louisville v. McDonald, Ky., 470 S.W.2d 173 (1971).

1977American Beauty Homes Corp. v. Louisville, etc., Ky., 379 S.W.2d 450 (1964); City of Louisville v. McDonald, Ky., 470 S.W.2d 173 (1971).

2002The genesis of the “missing evidence” instruction is the per curiam opinion (three justices concurring, two justices concurring in result only without separate opinion) in Sanborn v. Commonwealth, Ky., 754 S.W.2d 534 (1988), wherein it was stated that the intentional destruction of exculpatory evidence by the Commonwealth is a Due Process violation per Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), requiring (1) dismissal, (2) exclusion of the Commonwealth’s evidence, or (3) an instruction permitting the jury to infer that the missing evidence, if available, would be a

2002The genesis of the “missing evidence” instruction is the per curiam opinion (three justices concurring, two justices concurring in result only without separate opinion) in Sanborn v. Commonwealth, Ky., 754 S.W.2d 534 (1988), wherein it was stated that the intentional destruction of exculpatory evidence by the Commonwealth is a Due Process violation per Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), requiring (1) dismissal, (2) exclusion of the Commonwealth’s evidence, or (3) an instruction permitting the jury to infer that the missing evidence, if available, would be a

2026To satisfy the minimal due process requirement, the prison must provide: “(1) advance written notice of the disciplinary charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in [the inmate’s] defense; and (3) a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 454 , 105 S.Ct. at 2773 (citing Wolff, 418 U.S. 563 -67, 94 S. Ct. at 2978-80 ).

2009See Wolff v. *263 McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (U.S.Neb.1974); Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 , 115 S.Ct. 2293 , 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995).

2024A punitive damages award violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it is “grossly excessive.” Id. (citing BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 568 , 116 S. Ct. 1589, 1595 , 134 L.

2024A punitive damages award violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it is “grossly excessive.” Id. (citing BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 568 , 116 S. Ct. 1589, 1595 , 134 L.