Joseph Gordon Young v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

Summary

The Court affirmed Young’s convictions and thirty-two-year sentence, rejecting his challenges based on double jeopardy, substitute counsel, expert testimony, and evidence concerning a victim’s autism. It held that arson and first-degree wanton endangerment require different statutory elements and may both be punished when based on one act, that the trial court adequately addressed Young’s request for new counsel, and that the challenged evidence was properly admitted. The Court also held that the arson investigators’ opinions concerned the fire’s cause and origin rather than Young’s guilt and therefore did not invade the jury’s province.