appellee claiming harmless error in Kentucky

2011“In this jurisdiction it is a rule of longstanding and frequent repetition that erroneous instructions to the jury are presumed to be prejudicial; that an appellee claiming harmless error bears the burden of showing affirmatively that no prejudice resulted from the error.” McKinney v. Heisel, 947 S.W.2d 32, 35 (Ky.1997).

2009McKinney v. Heisel, 947 S.W.2d 32, 35 (Ky.1997) ("In this jurisdiction it is a rule of longstanding and frequent repetition that erroneous instructions to the jury are presumed to be prejudicial; that an appellee claiming harmless error bears the burden of showing affirmatively that no prejudice resulted from the error.”). .

2025An “erroneous jury instruction may sometimes be an unfortunate, yet ultimately harmless error” but “erroneous instructions to the jury are presumed to be prejudicial” and “an appellee claiming harmless error bears the burden of -20- showing affirmatively that no prejudice resulted from the error.” Harp v. Commonwealth, 266 S.W.3d 813, 818 (Ky. 2008) (footnotes, internal quotation marks, and citations omitted).

2025An “erroneous jury instruction may sometimes be an unfortunate, yet ultimately harmless error” but “erroneous instructions to the jury are presumed to be prejudicial” and “an appellee claiming harmless error bears the burden of -20- showing affirmatively that no prejudice resulted from the error.” Harp v. Commonwealth, 266 S.W.3d 813, 818 (Ky. 2008) (footnotes, internal quotation marks, and citations omitted).

2020This view was recently expressed in Drury v. Spalding, [ 812 S.W.2d 713, 717 (Ky. 1991)], with a quotation from Prichard v. Kitchen, [ 242 S.W.2d 988 (Ky. 1951)], as follows: The rule is that generally an erroneous instruction is presumed to be prejudicial to appellant, and the burden is upon appellee to show affirmatively from the record that no prejudice resulted; and when the appellate court cannot determine from the record that the verdict was not influenced by the erroneous instruction, the judgment will be reversed. herein.

1997This view was recently expressed in Drury v. Spalding, Ky., 812 S.W.2d 713, 717 (1991), with a quotation from Prichard v. Kitchen, Ky., 242 S.W.2d 988 (1951), as follows: The rule is that generally an erroneous instruction is presumed to be prejudicial to appellant, and the burden is upon appellee to show affirmatively from the record that no prejudice resulted; and when the appellate court cannot determine from the record that the verdict was not influenced by the erroneous instruction, the judgment will be reversed.

2009Heisel, 947 S.W.2d 32, 35 (Ky. 1997) ("In this jurisdiction it is a rule of longstanding and frequent repetition that erroneous instructions to the jury are presumed to be prejudicial ; that an appellee claiming harmless error bears the burden of showing affirmatively that no prejudice resulted from the error.") . 47 Wemyss v. Coleman , 729 S.W.2d 174, 178 (Ky. 1987) . 26 smoking entitled him to an instruction regarding Candria's alleged failure to mitigate her damages.

2009Co. of New York, 303 S.W.2d 319, 321 (Ky.1957) ("Each party to an action is entitled to an instruction upon his theory of the case if there is evidence to sustain it."). [46] McKinney v. Heisel, 947 S.W.2d 32, 35 (Ky. 1997) ("In this jurisdiction it is a rule of longstanding and frequent repetition that erroneous instructions to the jury are presumed to be prejudicial; that an appellee claiming harmless error bears the burden of showing affirmatively that no prejudice resulted from the error."). [47] Wemyss v. Coleman, 729 S.W.2d 174, 178 (Ky.1987). [48] Cf. Proven Products Sales and Service v

2009Co. of New York, 303 S.W.2d 319, 321 (Ky.1957) ("Each party to an action is entitled to an instruction upon his theory of the case if there is evidence to sustain it."). [46] McKinney v. Heisel, 947 S.W.2d 32, 35 (Ky. 1997) ("In this jurisdiction it is a rule of longstanding and frequent repetition that erroneous instructions to the jury are presumed to be prejudicial; that an appellee claiming harmless error bears the burden of showing affirmatively that no prejudice resulted from the error."). [47] Wemyss v. Coleman, 729 S.W.2d 174, 178 (Ky.1987). [48] Cf. Proven Products Sales and Service v

2009Co. of New York, 303 S.W.2d 319, 321 (Ky.1957) ("Each party to an action is entitled to an instruction upon his theory of the case if there is evidence to sustain it."). [46] McKinney v. Heisel, 947 S.W.2d 32, 35 (Ky. 1997) ("In this jurisdiction it is a rule of longstanding and frequent repetition that erroneous instructions to the jury are presumed to be prejudicial; that an appellee claiming harmless error bears the burden of showing affirmatively that no prejudice resulted from the error."). [47] Wemyss v. Coleman, 729 S.W.2d 174, 178 (Ky.1987). [48] Cf. Proven Products Sales and Service v

2006“It is only in a case which is clear and free of all doubt on the point that an instruction which is erroneous can be said by the court to have been without prejudicial effect on the minds of some of the jurors.” Southeastern Greyhound Lines v. Buckles, 298 Ky. 681, 684 , 183 S.W.2d 965, 966 (1944).

2006“It is only in a case which is clear and free of all doubt on the point that an instruction which is erroneous can be said by the court to have been without prejudicial effect on the minds of some of the jurors.” Southeastern Greyhound Lines v. Buckles, 298 Ky. 681, 684 , 183 S.W.2d 965, 966 (1944).