FRANKFORT, Ky. (Oct. 3, 2012) — The Supreme Court of Kentucky will convene Wednesday and Thursday, Oct. 17-18, in Frankfort to hear oral arguments in cases that originated in Fayette, Kenton, Knox, Logan and Nelson counties. Proceedings are open to the public and will take place in the Supreme Court Courtroom on the second floor of the state Capitol at 700 Capitol Ave. The court will hear cases at 9 and 10 a.m. Oct. 17 and at 9, 10 and 11 a.m. Oct. 18.
The public also may observe oral arguments via the Supreme Court live stream on the Kentucky Court of Justice website. Oral arguments are available online as they occur in real time and are not available as archives.
The Supreme Court is the state court of last resort and the final interpreter of Kentucky law. Seven justices (read their bios) sit on the Supreme Court and all seven justices rule on appeals that come before the court. The justices are elected from seven appellate districts and serve eight-year terms. A chief justice, chosen for a four-year term by fellow justices, is the administrative head of the state’s court system and is responsible for its operation. The Supreme Court may order a ruling or opinion to be published, which means that the ruling becomes the case law governing all similar cases in the future in Kentucky.
9 a.m. — Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. Steadman; Steadman vs. Commonwealth of Kentucky. Summary: Criminal Law. Restitution. Jurisdiction. The questions presented include whether a defendant can consent to a delay in a restitution hearing and disposition beyond 10 days after entry of final judgment.
10 a.m. — Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. Hamilton, et al. Summary: Challenge to reclassification of a controlled substance by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services.
9 a.m. — Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. Ousley. Summary: Criminal law. Warrantless searches of defendant’s trash container. Expectation of privacy.
10 a.m. — N.C., a child under 18 vs. Commonwealth of Kentucky. Summary: Juvenile law. Custody. Miranda. The issue is whether a juvenile’s incriminating statements are admissible where the school’s assistant principal questioned the juvenile about criminal conduct in the presence of a school resource officer, who also was a deputy sheriff, without giving the juvenile Miranda warnings or telling the juvenile he was free to leave the office, refuse to answer questions or free to call his legal guardian.
11 a.m. — Fort Mitchell Country Club vs. Timothy Lamarre, et al. Summary: Torts. Dram Shop Act. Issues include whether statutory violations other than the sale of alcohol to a minor deprive a dram shop of the act’s protection and whether intent to hold intoxicated tortfeasors primarily liable and licensed alcohol sellers only secondarily liable survives.