Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
James Brian Snow v. Lorna Cooper Snow
Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 2026-06-12
In this case, James Brian Snow appealed a domestic violence order (DVO) issued against him by the Henderson Circuit Court Family Division in favor of his wife, Lorna Cooper Snow, during their ongoing divorce. The DVO arose from allegations that Snow violated prior agreed orders by making unwanted contact, walking around the property, brandishing a weapon while threatening his wife and children, destroying security cameras she had installed, and other conduct that caused her fear. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the DVO, ruling that the trial court properly found by a preponderance of the evidence under KRS 403.720 and 403.750 that domestic violence had occurred and was likely to occur again. The appellate court held that the trial court's findings were supported by substantial evidence, including the wife's testimony and evidence of repeated order violations, and were not clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion.
family law
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Simeyon J. Johnson
Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 2026-06-12
The Kentucky Court of Appeals consolidated two appeals by the Commonwealth from a Franklin Circuit Court order and judgment in Simeyon J. Johnson’s criminal case. Johnson, who pleaded guilty to second-degree manslaughter after committing the offense in 2023, had sought a declaratory ruling in his criminal case that an amended version of KRS 439.3401 (effective July 2024) did not apply to him, so that he would face only 20% parole eligibility rather than the 85% required for violent offenders under the new statute. The trial court agreed, finding an ex post facto violation and conditioning acceptance of the plea on the old eligibility rules. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court lacked authority to decide the issue because the Department of Corrections—not a party to the criminal case—is responsible for violent-offender classifications, and challenges to parole eligibility must be brought in a separate declaratory action against the DOC under longstanding precedent such as Mason v. Commonwealth and Hoskins v. Commonwealth. The court distinguished Rushin v. Commonwealth on the ground that procedural and jurisdictional objections had been properly raised here.
criminal lawprocedure
Gregory Seth Thomas v. Louvinia Mae Thomas
Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 2026-06-12
Gregory Seth Thomas appealed the Daviess Circuit Court’s decree dissolving his marriage to Louvinia Mae Thomas, arguing that a 2014 Indiana prenuptial agreement and its 2021 postnuptial amendment were unconscionable and unenforceable. The agreements entitled Louvinia to $2,000 monthly support indefinitely, plus all property, if the marriage ended due to Gregory’s infidelity, which the amendment defined expansively to include nearly all contact with other women. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s rulings that the agreements were valid and enforceable. Applying Indiana law, which favors premarital agreements entered voluntarily without fraud, duress, or unconscionability, the court found the contracts reflected mutual assent, were drafted with Gregory’s participation and counsel, and contained terms the parties had freely bargained for; it rejected claims that the indefinite duration or broad infidelity trigger rendered them unenforceable or unconscionable.
family law
Dashawn Johnson v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 2026-06-12
In this case, DaShawn Johnson appealed the Henderson Circuit Court’s denial of his CR 60.02 motion, in which he sought to correct his sentence on the grounds that his aggregate 30-year prison term—20 years for first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance and first-degree persistent felony offender, imposed consecutively to a separate 10-year sentence for possession of a handgun by a convicted felon—violated the sentencing caps in KRS 532.110(1)(c) and KRS 532.080(6)(b). Johnson had previously been convicted following a bench trial and jury trial, and the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and rejected the same sentencing-cap argument on direct appeal in 2018. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s denial of relief. The court reasoned that CR 60.02 cannot be used to relitigate claims already decided on direct appeal, citing Gross v. Commonwealth and the law-of-the-case doctrine, which bars reconsideration of issues finally adjudicated in the same case.
criminal lawprocedure
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Kendall Daugherty
Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 2026-05-29
In this case, the Commonwealth appealed two Montgomery Circuit Court orders in the prosecution of Kendall Daugherty for attempted murder after he shot William Harris. The trial court had granted Daugherty’s motion to invoke the spousal testimony privilege under KRE 504(a) to bar his wife from testifying at trial, despite her having been called and questioned by both sides about the incident during two pre-trial hearings; the court also set a trial date while the privilege appeal was pending. The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that Daugherty waived the privilege under KRE 509 by voluntarily disclosing a significant part of the privileged matter through his wife’s pre-trial testimony. The court further explained that the privilege applies only to testimony truly adverse to the party-spouse, not to all testimony, and that the pending appeal rendered the trial-scheduling issue moot.
criminal lawprocedurefamily law
Harvey Pelfrey v. The Estate of Steven Dewey McDowell, by and Through Brenda Roberts, as Administratrix
Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 2026-05-29
The case arose after Steven Dewey McDowell died in custody at the Three Forks Regional Jail following an incident in which he left his medical observation cell, repeatedly ignored commands to return or enter a shower, and was sprayed multiple times with oleum capsicum (OC) by deputy jailers Ross, Jones, and Conkright to gain compliance; the Estate sued the jail employees in their individual capacities for negligence, excessive force, and related claims, alleging improper use of OC and failure to provide medical evaluation. The Lee Circuit Court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that violations of jail policies rendered the conduct ministerial and thus unprotected by qualified official immunity, while also identifying a factual dispute on causation. On appeal, the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that Ross, Jones, and Conkright were entitled to qualified official immunity because their use of OC to control a noncompliant inmate constituted discretionary acts performed in good faith and within the scope of their authority under the standard set forth in Yanero v. Davis. The court dismissed the remaining claims of error as not properly before it on this interlocutory appeal.
civil rightsproceduretorts & liability