Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
28 Kentucky opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2025 11 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kentucky courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Springfield v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2025In determining whether the evidence presented at trial requires the giving of a requested instruction, “we must ask ourselves, construing the evidence favorably to the proponent of the instruction, whether the evidence would permit a reasonable juror to make the finding the instruction authorizes.” Springfield v. Commonwealth, 410 S.W.3d 589, 594 (Ky. 2013). 2015To ascertain whether the jury instruction on wanton murder was proper, “we must ask ourselves, construing the evidence favorably to the proponent of the instruction, whether the evidence would permit a reasonable juror to make the finding the instruction authorizes.” Springfield v. Commonwealth, 410 S.W.3d 589, 594 (Ky.2013). | 4 | 4 |
Taylor v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2018The trial court has the duty in a criminal case "to prepare and give instructions on the whole law of the case, and this rule requires instructions applicable to every state of the case deducible or supported to any extent by the testimony." Taylor v. Commonwealth, 995 S.W.2d 355, 360 (Ky. 1999). 22 However, "[a]n instruction on a lesser-included offense is appropriate if and only if on the given evidence a reasonable juror could entertain reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt on the greater charge, bu~ believe beyond a· · reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the lesser offense 2018The trial court has the duty in a criminal case “to prepare and give instructions on the whole law of the case, and this rule requires instructions applicable to every state of the case deducible or supported to any extent by the testimony.” Taylor v. Commonwealth, 995 S.W.2d 355, 360 (Ky. 1999). | 4 | 4 |
Manning v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2016Likewise, in Manning v. Commonwealth, we held that the trial court must instruct on every theory of the case reasonably deducible from the evidence. 6 And most recently, we held that "Each party to an action is entitled to an instruction upon his theory of the case if there is evidence to sustain it."' On appellate review of a trial court's 6 See 23 S.W.3d 610, 614 (Ky. 2000). 7 Sargent v. Schaffer, 467 S.W.3d 198, 203 (Ky. 2015). 6 v refusal to give an instruction we "must ask ourselves, construing the e idence favorably to the proponent of the instruction, whether the evidence would permit a 2016Likewise, in Manning v. Commonwealth, we held that the trial court must instruct on every theory of the case reasonably deducible from the evidence. 6 And most recently, we held that "Each party to an action is entitled to an instruction upon his theory of the case if there is evidence to sustain it." 7 On appellate review of a trial court's 6 See 23 S.W.3d 610, 614 (Ky. 2000). 7 Sargent v. Schaffer, 467 S.W.3d 198, 203 (Ky. 2015). 6 refusal to give an instruction we "must ask ourselves, construing the evidence favorably to the proponent of the instruction, whether the evidence would permit a | 2 | 2 |
Sargent v. Shaffergreen2 sentences2016Likewise, in Manning v. Commonwealth, we held that the trial court must instruct on every theory of the case reasonably deducible from the evidence. 6 And most recently, we held that "Each party to an action is entitled to an instruction upon his theory of the case if there is evidence to sustain it."' On appellate review of a trial court's 6 See 23 S.W.3d 610, 614 (Ky. 2000). 7 Sargent v. Schaffer, 467 S.W.3d 198, 203 (Ky. 2015). 6 v refusal to give an instruction we "must ask ourselves, construing the e idence favorably to the proponent of the instruction, whether the evidence would permit a 2016Likewise, in Manning v. Commonwealth, we held that the trial court must instruct on every theory of the case reasonably deducible from the evidence. 6 And most recently, we held that "Each party to an action is entitled to an instruction upon his theory of the case if there is evidence to sustain it." 7 On appellate review of a trial court's 6 See 23 S.W.3d 610, 614 (Ky. 2000). 7 Sargent v. Schaffer, 467 S.W.3d 198, 203 (Ky. 2015). 6 refusal to give an instruction we "must ask ourselves, construing the evidence favorably to the proponent of the instruction, whether the evidence would permit a | 2 | 2 |
Skinner v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2018The trial court has the duty in a criminal case "to prepare and give instructions on the whole law of the case, and this rule requires instructions applicable to every state of the case deducible or supported to any extent by the testimony." Taylor v. Commonwealth, 995 S.W.2d 355, 360 (Ky. 1999). 22 However, "[a]n instruction on a lesser-included offense is appropriate if and only if on the given evidence a reasonable juror could entertain reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt on the greater charge, bu~ believe beyond a· · reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the lesser offense | 1 | 1 |
David Alan Jenkins v. Commonwealth of Kentuckygreen1 sentence2018Correspondingly, a trial court must only give a lesser included offense instruction “if, but only if, considering the totality of the 2 evidence, the jury might have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt of the greater offense, and yet believe beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the lesser offense.” Jenkins v. Commonwealth, 496 S.W.3d 435, 449 (Ky. 2016) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Opus 3 Limited v. Heritage Park, Incorporated, and Paul Stein, and James O'Brien David Kopp David J. Mislin John Does, Third Partygreen1 sentence2016Although it appears that no court has developed a precise test for what makes a witness’s presence “essential,” the proponent of the exception must do more than show that the witness’s presence is “simply desirable,” Opus 3, Ltd., 91 F.3d at 629 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), or “helpful.” United States v. Agnes, 753 F.2d 293, 307 (3rd Cir. 1985), abrogated on other grounds by Smith v. Borough of Wilkinsburg, 147 F.3d 272 (3rd Cir. 1998); Olofson, 563 F.3d at 661. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Agnes, Louis, AKA \Louis Martin\"green1 sentence2016Although it appears that no court has developed a precise test for what makes a witness’s presence “essential,” the proponent of the exception must do more than show that the witness’s presence is “simply desirable,” Opus 3, Ltd., 91 F.3d at 629 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), or “helpful.” United States v. Agnes, 753 F.2d 293, 307 (3rd Cir. 1985), abrogated on other grounds by Smith v. Borough of Wilkinsburg, 147 F.3d 272 (3rd Cir. 1998); Olofson, 563 F.3d at 661. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Construction Products Research, Inc. Five Star Products, Inc. And H. Nash Babcockgreen2 sentences2002Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir.1996) ("If the party invoking the privilege does not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate fulfillment of all the legal requirements for application of the privilege his claim will be rejected.") (quotation omitted); United States v. Abrahams, 905 F.2d 1276, 1283 (9th Cir.1990) (proponent has the burden of establishing all of the conditions necessary for application of the privilege), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir.1997); cf. Stidham v. Clark, Ky., 74 S.W.3d 719, 725 (2002) ("Because privileges opera 2002Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir.1996) (“If the party invoking the privilege does not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate fulfillment of all the legal requirements for application of the privilege his claim will be rejected.”) (quotation omitted); United States v. Abrahams, 905 F.2d 1276, 1283 (9th Cir.1990) (proponent has the burden of establishing all of the conditions necessary for application of the privilege), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir.1997); cf. Stidham v. Clark, Ky., 74 S.W.3d 719, 725 (2002) (“Because privileges opera | 1 | 1 |
Stidham v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2002Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir.1996) ("If the party invoking the privilege does not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate fulfillment of all the legal requirements for application of the privilege his claim will be rejected.") (quotation omitted); United States v. Abrahams, 905 F.2d 1276, 1283 (9th Cir.1990) (proponent has the burden of establishing all of the conditions necessary for application of the privilege), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir.1997); cf. Stidham v. Clark, Ky., 74 S.W.3d 719, 725 (2002) ("Because privileges opera 2002Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir.1996) (“If the party invoking the privilege does not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate fulfillment of all the legal requirements for application of the privilege his claim will be rejected.”) (quotation omitted); United States v. Abrahams, 905 F.2d 1276, 1283 (9th Cir.1990) (proponent has the burden of establishing all of the conditions necessary for application of the privilege), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir.1997); cf. Stidham v. Clark, Ky., 74 S.W.3d 719, 725 (2002) (“Because privileges opera | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Abrahamsgreen2 sentences2002Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir.1996) ("If the party invoking the privilege does not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate fulfillment of all the legal requirements for application of the privilege his claim will be rejected.") (quotation omitted); United States v. Abrahams, 905 F.2d 1276, 1283 (9th Cir.1990) (proponent has the burden of establishing all of the conditions necessary for application of the privilege), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir.1997); cf. Stidham v. Clark, Ky., 74 S.W.3d 719, 725 (2002) ("Because privileges opera 2002Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir.1996) (“If the party invoking the privilege does not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate fulfillment of all the legal requirements for application of the privilege his claim will be rejected.”) (quotation omitted); United States v. Abrahams, 905 F.2d 1276, 1283 (9th Cir.1990) (proponent has the burden of establishing all of the conditions necessary for application of the privilege), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir.1997); cf. Stidham v. Clark, Ky., 74 S.W.3d 719, 725 (2002) (“Because privileges opera | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Josegreen2 sentences2002Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir.1996) ("If the party invoking the privilege does not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate fulfillment of all the legal requirements for application of the privilege his claim will be rejected.") (quotation omitted); United States v. Abrahams, 905 F.2d 1276, 1283 (9th Cir.1990) (proponent has the burden of establishing all of the conditions necessary for application of the privilege), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir.1997); cf. Stidham v. Clark, Ky., 74 S.W.3d 719, 725 (2002) ("Because privileges opera 2002Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir.1996) (“If the party invoking the privilege does not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate fulfillment of all the legal requirements for application of the privilege his claim will be rejected.”) (quotation omitted); United States v. Abrahams, 905 F.2d 1276, 1283 (9th Cir.1990) (proponent has the burden of establishing all of the conditions necessary for application of the privilege), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir.1997); cf. Stidham v. Clark, Ky., 74 S.W.3d 719, 725 (2002) (“Because privileges opera | 1 | 1 |
David R. Hawkins v. Andrea L. Stablesgreen2 sentences2002Hawkins v. Stables, supra, at 381 (burden of proof is on the proponent of the privilege); United States v. Construction Prods. 2002Hawkins v. Stables, supra, at 381 (burden of proof is on the proponent of the privilege); United States v. Construction Prods. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Allen v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2023On appellate review from the denial of a requested instruction, we must “[c]onstru[e] the evidence favorably to the proponent of the instruction. . . [and] ask whether the evidence would permit a reasonable juror to make the finding the instruction authorizes.” Allen v. Commonwealth, 338 S.W.3d 252 , 255 n.1 (Ky. 2011); see also 23A C.J.S. 2023On appellate review from the denial of a requested instruction, we must “[c]onstru[e] the evidence favorably to the proponent of the instruction. . . [and] ask whether the evidence would permit a reasonable juror to make the finding the instruction authorizes.” Allen v. Commonwealth, 338 S.W.3d 252 , 255 n.1 (Ky. 2011); see also 23A C.J.S. | 17 | 2013–2023 |
Thomas v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2021Thus, “[c]onsidering the evidence favorably to the proponent of the instruction, we ask, as just noted, whether a reasonable juror could acquit of the greater charge but convict of the lesser.” Id. (citing Thomas v. Commonwealth, 170 S.W.3d 343 (Ky. 2005); Osborne, supra; Commonwealth v. Wolford, 4 S.W.3d 534 (Ky. 1999)). 2011Thomas v. Commonwealth, 170 S.W.3d 343 (Ky.2005); Osborne, supra; Commonwealth v. Wolford, 4 S.W.3d 534 (Ky.1999). 1 Generally, of course, a lesser included offense instruction is not required unless the lesser offense is, in fact, “included” within the greater charged offense. | 2 | 2011–2021 |
Osborne v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2021Thus, “[c]onsidering the evidence favorably to the proponent of the instruction, we ask, as just noted, whether a reasonable juror could acquit of the greater charge but convict of the lesser.” Id. (citing Thomas v. Commonwealth, 170 S.W.3d 343 (Ky. 2005); Osborne, supra; Commonwealth v. Wolford, 4 S.W.3d 534 (Ky. 1999)). 2011Thomas v. Commonwealth, 170 S.W.3d 343 (Ky.2005); Osborne, supra; Commonwealth v. Wolford, 4 S.W.3d 534 (Ky.1999). 1 Generally, of course, a lesser included offense instruction is not required unless the lesser offense is, in fact, “included” within the greater charged offense. | 2 | 2011–2021 |
Commonwealth v. Wolford
green
2 sentences2021Thus, “[c]onsidering the evidence favorably to the proponent of the instruction, we ask, as just noted, whether a reasonable juror could acquit of the greater charge but convict of the lesser.” Id. (citing Thomas v. Commonwealth, 170 S.W.3d 343 (Ky. 2005); Osborne, supra; Commonwealth v. Wolford, 4 S.W.3d 534 (Ky. 1999)). 2011Thomas v. Commonwealth, 170 S.W.3d 343 (Ky.2005); Osborne, supra; Commonwealth v. Wolford, 4 S.W.3d 534 (Ky.1999). 1 Generally, of course, a lesser included offense instruction is not required unless the lesser offense is, in fact, “included” within the greater charged offense. | 2 | 2011–2021 |
Baker v. Com. of Ky.
green
1 sentence2025Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
McAbee v. Chapman
green
1 sentence2019Id. at T7. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Edward C. Smith v. Borough of Wilkinsburg
green
1 sentence2016Although it appears that no court has developed a precise test for what makes a witness’s presence “essential,” the proponent of the exception must do more than show that the witness’s presence is “simply desirable,” Opus 3, Ltd., 91 F.3d at 629 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), or “helpful.” United States v. Agnes, 753 F.2d 293, 307 (3rd Cir. 1985), abrogated on other grounds by Smith v. Borough of Wilkinsburg, 147 F.3d 272 (3rd Cir. 1998); Olofson, 563 F.3d at 661. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.