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.
14 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Talbott v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2025As this Court has explained, the analysis “involves considering the improper evidence in the context of the entire trial and asking whether there is a ‘reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.’” Staples v. Commonwealth, 454 S.W.3d 803 , 826–27 (Ky. 2014) (quoting Talbott v. Commonwealth, 968 S.W.2d 76, 84 (Ky. 1998)). 2016Because this was a constitutional error, the harmlessness threshold is much higher than for non-constitutional errors; the standard here is whether we are convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); see also Taylor v. Commonwealth, 175 S.W.3d 68, 72 (Ky.2005) (applying constitutional-harmless-error analysis to Crawford violation). ' As this Court has explained, the analysis “involves considering the improper evidence in the context of the entire tria | 3 | 3 |
Taylor v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2025Because this would be a constitutional error, the harmlessness threshold is much higher than for non-constitutional errors; the standard here is whether we are convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967); see also Taylor v. Commonwealth, 175 S.W.3d 68, 72 (Ky. 2005) (applying constitutional- harmless-error analysis to Crawford violation). 2016Because this was a constitutional error, the harmlessness threshold is much higher than for non-constitutional errors; the standard here is whether we are convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); see also Taylor v. Commonwealth, 175 S.W.3d 68, 72 (Ky.2005) (applying constitutional-harmless-error analysis to Crawford violation). ' As this Court has explained, the analysis “involves considering the improper evidence in the context of the entire tria | 2 | 2 |
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences2025Because this would be a constitutional error, the harmlessness threshold is much higher than for non-constitutional errors; the standard here is whether we are convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967); see also Taylor v. Commonwealth, 175 S.W.3d 68, 72 (Ky. 2005) (applying constitutional- harmless-error analysis to Crawford violation). 2016Because this was a constitutional error, the harmlessness threshold is much higher than for non-constitutional errors; the standard here is whether we are convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); see also Taylor v. Commonwealth, 175 S.W.3d 68, 72 (Ky.2005) (applying constitutional-harmless-error analysis to Crawford violation). ' As this Court has explained, the analysis “involves considering the improper evidence in the context of the entire tria | 1 | 3 |
Staples v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2025As this Court has explained, the analysis “involves considering the improper evidence in the context of the entire trial and asking whether there is a ‘reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.’” Staples v. Commonwealth, 454 S.W.3d 803 , 826–27 (Ky. 2014) (quoting Talbott v. Commonwealth, 968 S.W.2d 76, 84 (Ky. 1998)). 2016Because this was a constitutional error, the harmlessness threshold is much higher than for non-constitutional errors; the standard here is whether we are convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); see also Taylor v. Commonwealth, 175 S.W.3d 68, 72 (Ky.2005) (applying constitutional-harmless-error analysis to Crawford violation). ' As this Court has explained, the analysis “involves considering the improper evidence in the context of the entire tria | 1 | 2 |
Bullcoming v. New Mexicogreen2 sentences2014Heard v. Commonwealth, 217 S.W.3d 240 (Ky.2007) (analyzing Crawford error for harmlessness); Bullcoming v. New Mexico, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2705, 2719 , 180 L.Ed.2d 610 nt. 11 (2011) (reversing on the ground of Crawford error, but noting that “nothing in this opinion impedes a harmless-error inquiry on remand”); State v. Vigil, 306 P.3d 845 (Utah App.2013) (collecting cases to show that every federal circuit has applied harmless error analysis to Crawford errors). 2014Heard v. Commonwealth, 217 S.W.3d 240 (Ky.2007) (analyzing Crawford error for harmlessness); Bullcoming v. New Mexico, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2705, 2719 , 180 L.Ed.2d 610 nt. 11 (2011) (reversing on the ground of Crawford error, but noting that “nothing in this opinion impedes a harmless-error inquiry on remand”); State v. Vigil, 306 P.3d 845 (Utah App.2013) (collecting cases to show that every federal circuit has applied harmless error analysis to Crawford errors). | 1 | 2 |
Phon v. Com. of Ky.green1 sentence2024See Phon, 545 S.W.3d at 307 (quoting McClanahan, 308 S.W.3d at 701 ) (“A sentence that lies outside the statutory limits is an illegal sentence, and the imposition of an illegal sentence is inherently an abuse of discretion.”). | 1 | 1 |
McClanahan v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2024See Phon, 545 S.W.3d at 307 (quoting McClanahan, 308 S.W.3d at 701 ) (“A sentence that lies outside the statutory limits is an illegal sentence, and the imposition of an illegal sentence is inherently an abuse of discretion.”). | 1 | 1 |
Manery v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2023Manery v. Commonwealth, 492 S.W.3d 140, 144-45 (Ky. 2016) (citations omitted). 2 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S. Ct. 2531 , 65 L. 2023Manery v. Commonwealth, 492 S.W.3d 140, 144-45 (Ky. 2016) (citations omitted). 2 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S. Ct. 2531 , 65 L. | 1 | 1 |
City of Pioneer Village v. Bullitt County Ex Rel. Bullitt Fiscal Courtgreen1 sentence2021This appeal followed.9 STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review of a ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is well established: Kentucky’s “Civil Rule [(“CR”)] 12.03 provides that any party to a lawsuit may move for a judgment on the pleadings.” City of Pioneer Village v. Bullitt Cty., 104 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Ky. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Stonegreen1 sentence2013From Allen’s redacted statement standing alone, the jury would have had no idea of Peacher’s existence. 2 Nevertheless, relying on our discussion in Commonwealth v. Stone, 291 S.W.3d 696, 701 (Ky.2009), of “the possibility of Crawford error despite Bruton compliance,” Peacher contends that Allen’s statements describing Christopher’s condition when he got up Wednesday morning — his lack of appetite, his lethargy, his dazed appearance — tended to inculpate him, Peacher, and so were not admissible under Crawford absent an opportunity to cross-examine Allen. | 1 | 1 |
Schrimsher v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2009In Schrimsher v. Commonwealth, 190 S.W.3d 318, 324 (Ky.2006) we tacitly recognized the possibility of Crawford error despite Bruton compliance, when we held that, “A redaction that is facially valid may still amount to a Sixth Amendment violation if it can only be reasonably interpreted as inculpating the defendant.” (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Ramos-Cardenasgreen2 sentences2009See also United States v. Ramos-Cardenas, 524 F.3d 600 (5th Cir.2008) (collecting cases). 2009See also United States v. Ramos-Cardenas, 524 F.3d 600 (5th Cir.2008) (collecting cases). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Stevensgreen2 sentences2009We agree with the several courts that have held that this latter question continues to be controlled by the Bruton line of cases and that “[t]he same redaction that ‘prevents Bruton error also serves to prevent Crawford error.’ ” People v. Stevens, 41 Cal.4th 182 , 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 196 , 158 P.3d 763, 776 (2007) (quoting from United States v. Chen, 393 F.3d 139 (2nd Cir.2004)). 2009We agree with the several courts that have held that this latter question continues to be controlled by the Bruton line of cases and that “[t]he same redaction that ‘prevents Bruton error also serves to prevent Crawford error.’ ” People v. Stevens, 41 Cal.4th 182 , 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 196 , 158 P.3d 763, 776 (2007) (quoting from United States v. Chen, 393 F.3d 139 (2nd Cir.2004)). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Angulogreen2 sentences2006In re April C., 131 Cal.App.4th 599 , 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 804, 811-12 (2005) (juvenile dependency proceeding); People v. Angulo, 129 Cal.App.4th 1349 , 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 189, 201-02 (2005) (civil commitment proceeding); In re C.M., 351 Ill.App.3d 913 , 286 Ill.Dec. 839 , 815 N.E.2d 49, 52 (2004) (guardianship proceeding premised upon child neglect and abuse); Commonwealth v. Given, 441 Mass. 741 , 808 N.E.2d 788 , 794 n. 9 (2004) (civil commitment proceeding); In re G.G.N., 372 N.J.Super. 42 , 855 A.2d 569 , 579 (2004) ("We have found no case in any jurisdiction that *347 has extended Crawford to a ci 2006In re April C., 131 Cal.App.4th 599 , 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 804, 811-12 (2005) (juvenile dependency proceeding); People v. Angulo, 129 Cal.App.4th 1349 , 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 189, 201-02 (2005) (civil commitment proceeding); In re C.M., 351 Ill.App.3d 913 , 286 Ill.Dec. 839 , 815 N.E.2d 49, 52 (2004) (guardianship proceeding premised upon child neglect and abuse); Commonwealth v. Given, 441 Mass. 741 , 808 N.E.2d 788 , 794 n. 9 (2004) (civil commitment proceeding); In re G.G.N., 372 N.J.Super. 42 , 855 A.2d 569 , 579 (2004) ("We have found no case in any jurisdiction that *347 has extended Crawford to a ci | 1 | 1 |
| In Re SAgreen | 1 | 1 |
State v. Vaughtgreen2 sentences2006But see Crawford, 541 U.S. at 52 , 124 S.Ct. at 1364 (endorsing the view that statements were testimonial if, e.g., they "were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness, reasonably to believe that the statement[s] would be available for use at a later trial.”); People v. Vigil, 127 P.3d 916, 923 (Colo.2006) (statements made by child sexual abuse victim to examining physician admissible under Rule 803(4) and not testimonial in nature); State v. Scacchetti, 690 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Minn.Ct.App.2005) (holding statement made by child victim in response to nurse practitioner’s inqu 2006But see Crawford, 541 U.S. at 52 , 124 S.Ct. at 1364 (endorsing the view that statements were testimonial if, e.g., they "were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness, reasonably to believe that the statement[s] would be available for use at a later trial.”); People v. Vigil, 127 P.3d 916, 923 (Colo.2006) (statements made by child sexual abuse victim to examining physician admissible under Rule 803(4) and not testimonial in nature); State v. Scacchetti, 690 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Minn.Ct.App.2005) (holding statement made by child victim in response to nurse practitioner’s inqu | 1 | 1 |
| In Re April C.green | 1 | 1 |
| In Re C.M.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Fishergreen | 1 | 1 |
State v. Scacchettigreen1 sentence2006But see Crawford, 541 U.S. at 52 , 124 S.Ct. at 1364 (endorsing the view that statements were testimonial if, e.g., they "were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness, reasonably to believe that the statement[s] would be available for use at a later trial.”); People v. Vigil, 127 P.3d 916, 923 (Colo.2006) (statements made by child sexual abuse victim to examining physician admissible under Rule 803(4) and not testimonial in nature); State v. Scacchetti, 690 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Minn.Ct.App.2005) (holding statement made by child victim in response to nurse practitioner’s inqu | 1 | 1 |
In Re DRgreen1 sentence2006In re April C., 131 Cal.App.4th 599 , 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 804, 811-12 (2005) (juvenile dependency proceeding); People v. Angulo, 129 Cal.App.4th 1349 , 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 189, 201-02 (2005) (civil commitment proceeding); In re C.M., 351 Ill.App.3d 913 , 286 Ill.Dec. 839 , 815 N.E.2d 49, 52 (2004) (guardianship proceeding premised upon child neglect and abuse); Commonwealth v. Given, 441 Mass. 741 , 808 N.E.2d 788 , 794 n. 9 (2004) (civil commitment proceeding); In re G.G.N., 372 N.J.Super. 42 , 855 A.2d 569 , 579 (2004) ("We have found no case in any jurisdiction that *347 has extended Crawford to a ci | 1 | 1 |
People v. Vigilgreen1 sentence2006But see Crawford, 541 U.S. at 52 , 124 S.Ct. at 1364 (endorsing the view that statements were testimonial if, e.g., they "were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness, reasonably to believe that the statement[s] would be available for use at a later trial.”); People v. Vigil, 127 P.3d 916, 923 (Colo.2006) (statements made by child sexual abuse victim to examining physician admissible under Rule 803(4) and not testimonial in nature); State v. Scacchetti, 690 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Minn.Ct.App.2005) (holding statement made by child victim in response to nurse practitioner’s inqu | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2016Callahan also vaguely argues that "Amanda's statements do not meet the Crawford exception." See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). 2016Callahan also vaguely argues that "Amanda's statements do not meet the Crawford exception." See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Washington
green
2 sentences2015Bullcoming v. New Mexico, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2705, 2714, n.6 , 180 L.Ed.2d 610 (2011) {citing Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006) and Me lendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 , 129 S.Ct. 2527 , 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009), and noting that business records, generally not created for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact at trial, are generally not testimonial.). 2015Bullcoming v. New Mexico, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2705, 2714, n.6 , 180 L.Ed.2d 610 (2011) {citing Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006) and Me lendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 , 129 S.Ct. 2527 , 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009), and noting that business records, generally not created for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact at trial, are generally not testimonial.). | 2 | 2009–2015 |
Ohio v. Roberts
red
2 sentences2023Manery v. Commonwealth, 492 S.W.3d 140, 144-45 (Ky. 2016) (citations omitted). 2 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S. Ct. 2531 , 65 L. 2023Manery v. Commonwealth, 492 S.W.3d 140, 144-45 (Ky. 2016) (citations omitted). 2 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S. Ct. 2531 , 65 L. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. David McKee
green
1 sentence2019McKee, 486 S.W.3d at 869-70 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
green
2 sentences2015Bullcoming v. New Mexico, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2705, 2714, n.6 , 180 L.Ed.2d 610 (2011) {citing Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006) and Me lendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 , 129 S.Ct. 2527 , 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009), and noting that business records, generally not created for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact at trial, are generally not testimonial.). 2015Bullcoming v. New Mexico, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2705, 2714, n.6 , 180 L.Ed.2d 610 (2011) {citing Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006) and Me lendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 , 129 S.Ct. 2527 , 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009), and noting that business records, generally not created for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact at trial, are generally not testimonial.). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Heard v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2014Heard v. Commonwealth, 217 S.W.3d 240 (Ky.2007) (analyzing Crawford error for harmlessness); Bullcoming v. New Mexico, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2705, 2719 , 180 L.Ed.2d 610 nt. 11 (2011) (reversing on the ground of Crawford error, but noting that “nothing in this opinion impedes a harmless-error inquiry on remand”); State v. Vigil, 306 P.3d 845 (Utah App.2013) (collecting cases to show that every federal circuit has applied harmless error analysis to Crawford errors). 2014In Heard v. Commonwealth, 217 S.W.3d at 240 , on the other hand, we held that a Crawford violation was not harmless where the improper evidence was the only evidence on several points and was “the most damning [evidence] against Appellant with regard to the second-degree assault conviction.” 217 S.W.3d at 245 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Vigil
green
2 sentences2014Heard v. Commonwealth, 217 S.W.3d 240 (Ky.2007) (analyzing Crawford error for harmlessness); Bullcoming v. New Mexico, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2705, 2719 , 180 L.Ed.2d 610 nt. 11 (2011) (reversing on the ground of Crawford error, but noting that “nothing in this opinion impedes a harmless-error inquiry on remand”); State v. Vigil, 306 P.3d 845 (Utah App.2013) (collecting cases to show that every federal circuit has applied harmless error analysis to Crawford errors). 2014Heard v. Commonwealth, 217 S.W.3d 240 (Ky.2007) (analyzing Crawford error for harmlessness); Bullcoming v. New Mexico, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2705, 2719 , 180 L.Ed.2d 610 nt. 11 (2011) (reversing on the ground of Crawford error, but noting that “nothing in this opinion impedes a harmless-error inquiry on remand”); State v. Vigil, 306 P.3d 845 (Utah App.2013) (collecting cases to show that every federal circuit has applied harmless error analysis to Crawford errors). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Barth v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2014For similar reasons we also rejected a.harmless error claim in Barth v. Commonwealth, 80 S.W.3d 390 (Ky.2001). 2014For similar reasons we also rejected a.harmless error claim in Barth v. Commonwealth, 80 S.W.3d 390 (Ky.2001). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
United States v. Lung Fong Chen AKA Robert Chen, Joseph Liu, and Schuman Tu
green
2 sentences2009We agree with the several courts that have held that this latter question continues to be controlled by the Bruton line of cases and that "[t]he same redaction that `prevents Bruton error also serves to prevent Crawford error.'" People v. Stevens, 41 Cal.4th 182 , 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 196 , 158 P.3d 763, 776 (2007) (quoting from United States v. Chen, 393 F.3d 139 (2nd Cir.2004)). 2009We agree with the several courts that have held that this latter question continues to be controlled by the Bruton line of cases and that “[t]he same redaction that ‘prevents Bruton error also serves to prevent Crawford error.’ ” People v. Stevens, 41 Cal.4th 182 , 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 196 , 158 P.3d 763, 776 (2007) (quoting from United States v. Chen, 393 F.3d 139 (2nd Cir.2004)). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Rankins v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2009Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006); Rankins v. Commonwealth, 237 S.W.3d 128 (Ky.2007). 1 Deciding whether the statements at issue are testimonial in this case presents a puzzle. 2009Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006); Rankins v. Commonwealth, 237 S.W.3d 128 (Ky.2007). 1 Deciding whether the statements at issue are testimonial in this case presents a puzzle. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Commonwealth v. Given
green
2 sentences2006In re April C., 131 Cal.App.4th 599 , 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 804, 811-12 (2005) (juvenile dependency proceeding); People v. Angulo, 129 Cal.App.4th 1349 , 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 189, 201-02 (2005) (civil commitment proceeding); In re C.M., 351 Ill.App.3d 913 , 286 Ill.Dec. 839 , 815 N.E.2d 49, 52 (2004) (guardianship proceeding premised upon child neglect and abuse); Commonwealth v. Given, 441 Mass. 741 , 808 N.E.2d 788 , 794 n. 9 (2004) (civil commitment proceeding); In re G.G.N., 372 N.J.Super. 42 , 855 A.2d 569 , 579 (2004) ("We have found no case in any jurisdiction that *347 has extended Crawford to a ci 2006In re April C., 131 Cal.App.4th 599 , 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 804, 811-12 (2005) (juvenile dependency proceeding); People v. Angulo, 129 Cal.App.4th 1349 , 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 189, 201-02 (2005) (civil commitment proceeding); In re C.M., 351 Ill.App.3d 913 , 286 Ill.Dec. 839 , 815 N.E.2d 49, 52 (2004) (guardianship proceeding premised upon child neglect and abuse); Commonwealth v. Given, 441 Mass. 741 , 808 N.E.2d 788 , 794 n. 9 (2004) (civil commitment proceeding); In re G.G.N., 372 N.J.Super. 42 , 855 A.2d 569 , 579 (2004) ("We have found no case in any jurisdiction that *347 has extended Crawford to a ci | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| In Re Commitment of GGN green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Fisher
green
1 sentence2006But see Crawford, 541 U.S. at 52 , 124 S.Ct. at 1364 (endorsing the view that statements were testimonial if, e.g., they "were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness, reasonably to believe that the statement[s] would be available for use at a later trial.”); People v. Vigil, 127 P.3d 916, 923 (Colo.2006) (statements made by child sexual abuse victim to examining physician admissible under Rule 803(4) and not testimonial in nature); State v. Scacchetti, 690 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Minn.Ct.App.2005) (holding statement made by child victim in response to nurse practitioner’s inqu | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.