13 Kentucky opinions name it 3 courts 1917–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Richardsongreen2 sentences1991The appellant further alleges error in reference to this issue because the appellant was permitted to testify as to the nature of the prior conviction in violation of Richardson, supra, at 518 . 1991The appellant further alleges error in reference to this issue because the appellant was permitted to testify as to the nature of the prior conviction in violation of Richardson, supra, at 518 . | 1 | 2 |
Malone v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2023Moreover, even though the Kentucky Constitution guarantees an individual’s “absolute procedural due process right to be prosecuted by indictment[,]” this “is a personal privilege that may be waived.” Malone v. -8- Commonwealth, 30 S.W.3d 180, 183 (Ky. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Allen v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2021This issue was properly preserved, so we review for abuse of discretion and reverse the conviction if the error was not harmless in that it substantially swayed the verdict.18 Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts cannot be used “to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.”19 Evidence of prior crimes is generally inadmissible unless it is relevant to an issue of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident in the case.20 Even if the evidence is relevant to one of those categories and at issue | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2021This issue was properly preserved, so we review for abuse of discretion and reverse the conviction if the error was not harmless in that it substantially swayed the verdict.18 Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts cannot be used “to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.”19 Evidence of prior crimes is generally inadmissible unless it is relevant to an issue of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident in the case.20 Even if the evidence is relevant to one of those categories and at issue 2021This issue was properly preserved, so we review for abuse of discretion and reverse the conviction if the error was not harmless in that it substantially swayed the verdict.18 Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts cannot be used “to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.”19 Evidence of prior crimes is generally inadmissible unless it is relevant to an issue of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident in the case.20 Even if the evidence is relevant to one of those categories and at issue | 1 | 1 |
Luken v. Scottgreen1 sentence2004See Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir.1995); and Abed v. Armstrong, 209 F.3d 63, 67 (2d Cir.2000). 29 . | 1 | 1 |
Perkins v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2004Ordinarily, we would agree with appel-lee, but a conviction in violation of due process constitutes "[a] palpable error which affects the substantial rights of a party” which we may consider and relieve though it was insufficiently raised or preserved for our review’ ")(quoting Perkins v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 694 S.W.2d 721, 722 (1985)). 23 . | 1 | 1 |
Ralph Abed v. John J. Armstrong, Commissioner, Department of Corrections, State of Connecticutgreen1 sentence2004See Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir.1995); and Abed v. Armstrong, 209 F.3d 63, 67 (2d Cir.2000). 29 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dixon v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2021This issue was properly preserved, so we review for abuse of discretion and reverse the conviction if the error was not harmless in that it substantially swayed the verdict.18 Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts cannot be used “to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.”19 Evidence of prior crimes is generally inadmissible unless it is relevant to an issue of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident in the case.20 Even if the evidence is relevant to one of those categories and at issue | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Davis v. Alaska
green
2 sentences2018While no specific provision of the Kentucky Rules of Evidence provide for impeachment of a witness by bias, prejudice, or ulterior motives, “ we have always recognized that impeachment is permissible on cross-examination. 12 6 Id. 7 Id. 8 KRE 609(a). 9 KRE 609(b) (“Evidence of a conviction under this rule is not admissible if a period of more than ten (10) years has elapsed since the date of the conviction unless the court determines that the probative value of the conviction substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.”). 10 KRE 609(a) (“The identity of the crime upon which conviction was 2018While no specific provision of the Kentucky Rules of Evidence provide for impeachment of a witness by bias, prejudice, or ulterior motives, “ we have always recognized that impeachment is permissible on cross-examination. 12 6 Id. 7 Id. 8 KRE 609(a). 9 KRE 609(b) (“Evidence of a conviction under this rule is not admissible if a period of more than ten (10) years has elapsed since the date of the conviction unless the court determines that the probative value of the conviction substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.”). 10 KRE 609(a) (“The identity of the crime upon which conviction was | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Benham
green
1 sentence2004Ky., 816 S.W.2d 186 (1991). 24 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Robards v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1993Upon review, the court reasoned that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction under that instruction, and that the instruction “could have been erroneous only on the theory that it did not follow the allegations of the indictment.” Id. at 572 . 1993Upon review, the court reasoned that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction under that instruction, and that the instruction "could have been erroneous only on the theory that it did not follow the allegations of the indictment." Id. at 572 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Gossett v. Commonwealth
neutral
2 sentences1951Gossett v. Com., 274 Ky. 215 , 118 S.W.2d 528 ; De Attley v. Com., 310 Ky. 112 , 220 S.W.2d 106 . 1951Gossett v. Com., 274 Ky. 215 , 118 S.W.2d 528 ; De Attley v. Com., 310 Ky. 112 , 220 S.W.2d 106 . | 1 | 1951–1951 |
De Attley v. Commonwealth
neutral
2 sentences1951Gossett v. Com., 274 Ky. 215 , 118 S.W.2d 528 ; De Attley v. Com., 310 Ky. 112 , 220 S.W.2d 106 . 1951Gossett v. Com., 274 Ky. 215 , 118 S.W.2d 528 ; De Attley v. Com., 310 Ky. 112 , 220 S.W.2d 106 . | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Deskins v. Childers
neutral
2 sentences1930But in the case of Deskins v. Childers, Judge, 195 Ky. 209 , 242 S. W. 9, 11 , in discussing the same statute, we said: “The present prohibitory statute relating to intoxicating liquors, which became a law on March 22, 1922, and which superseded the act of 1920, by its eighteenth section, provides that the court upon a conviction of a violation of certain provisions of it, shall require the accused to enter into bond with sureties, conditioned that he will be of good behavior, and not violate any of the provisions of that law relating to intoxicating liquors for a period of one year.” (¡Our em 1930But in the case of Deskins v. Childers, Judge, 195 Ky. 209 , 242 S. W. 9, 11 , in discussing the same statute, we said: “The present prohibitory statute relating to intoxicating liquors, which became a law on March 22, 1922, and which superseded the act of 1920, by its eighteenth section, provides that the court upon a conviction of a violation of certain provisions of it, shall require the accused to enter into bond with sureties, conditioned that he will be of good behavior, and not violate any of the provisions of that law relating to intoxicating liquors for a period of one year.” (¡Our em | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Rice v. Gaines
neutral
2 sentences1930In the case of Rice v. Gaines, Judge, 203 Ky. 590 , 262 S. W. 945, 946 , there was involved this question: Whether or not the defendant could execute the bond at any time during the ninety-day period of his incarceration in jail for failing to do so and before that time expired? 1930In the case of Rice v. Gaines, Judge, 203 Ky. 590 , 262 S. W. 945, 946 , there was involved this question: Whether or not the defendant could execute the bond at any time during the ninety-day period of his incarceration in jail for failing to do so and before that time expired? | 1 | 1930–1930 |
McConnell v. People
neutral
1 sentence1925On appeal the defendant made the same question that is here being made and in response to his argument, the court said: ' “A conviction for violating the statute in one of these forms is available to enhance the penalty on a subsequent conviction for a violation in another, ’ ’ and then, in quoting from' another Vermont opinion ( 36 Vt. 667 ), said: “It is equally within intent and purpose of the law to punish offenders so incorrigible and hardened as not to desist after one chastisement for their breach of law.” Again in the case of McConnell v. People (Col.), 213 Pac. 674 , the same question | 1 | 1925–1925 |
State v. Haynes
neutral
1 sentence1925On appeal the defendant made the same question that is here being made and in response to his argument, the court said: ' “A conviction for violating the statute in one of these forms is available to enhance the penalty on a subsequent conviction for a violation in another, ’ ’ and then, in quoting from' another Vermont opinion ( 36 Vt. 667 ), said: “It is equally within intent and purpose of the law to punish offenders so incorrigible and hardened as not to desist after one chastisement for their breach of law.” Again in the case of McConnell v. People (Col.), 213 Pac. 674 , the same question | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Armstrong v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence1921It is said in the brief of counsel that the trial court thought the indictment was found under, section 2557b-3, Ky. Stats, (act of March 23, 1916), which seems to bo borne out by the fact that the jury were instructed, if they found appellant guilty, to inflict upon him the punishment prescribed by that section, which provides that ‘ ‘ on the second or any subsequent conviction for a violation of the act, or any of its amendments, committed after a former conviction for a violation of said act, or any of its- amendments, the defendant shall be confined in the penitentiary not less than one no | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Williams v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence1917This was the common law, and section 13, of the Bill of Rights, provides, that “no person shall, for the same offense be twice put in jeopardy of his life or limb,” and has, by decisions of this court, been extended to all felonies and to all cases where the punishment is infamous; Williams v. Com., 78 Ky. 93 ; Robinson v. Com., 88 Ky. 386 ; and section 176, Criminal Code, provides that “an acquittal by a judgment upon a verdict or a conviction shall bar another prosecution for the same offense. . . .” All courts are of one opinion, that where an individual has been once in legal jeopardy, he | 1 | 1917–1917 |
Robinson v. Commonwealth
neutral
1 sentence1917This was the common law, and section 13, of the Bill of Rights, provides, that “no person shall, for the same offense be twice put in jeopardy of his life or limb,” and has, by decisions of this court, been extended to all felonies and to all cases where the punishment is infamous; Williams v. Com., 78 Ky. 93 ; Robinson v. Com., 88 Ky. 386 ; and section 176, Criminal Code, provides that “an acquittal by a judgment upon a verdict or a conviction shall bar another prosecution for the same offense. . . .” All courts are of one opinion, that where an individual has been once in legal jeopardy, he | 1 | 1917–1917 |
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.