form instruction in Kentucky

2024“Generally stated, ‘opening the door’ to otherwise inadmissible evidence is a form of waiver that happens when one party’s use of inadmissible evidence justifies the opposing party’s rebuttal of that evidence with equally inadmissible proof.” Fairley v. Commonwealth, 527 S.W.3d 792, 802 (Ky. 2017) (quoting Commonwealth v. Stone, 291 S.W.3d 696, 701-02 (Ky. 2009)). -9- The main thrust of Workman’s appeal on this issue is that a recent Supreme Court case, Hemphill v. New York, 595 U.S. 140 , 142 S. Ct. 681 , 211 L.

2024We must determine whether the trial court’s decision was “arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999). 6 “Generally stated, ‘opening the door’ to otherwise inadmissible evidence is a form of waiver that happens when one party’s use of inadmissible evidence justifies the opposing party’s rebuttal of that evidence with equally inadmissible proof.” Commonwealth v. Stone, 291 S.W.3d 696, 701-02 (Ky. 2009).

2017The Commonwealth argued that this was a false claim and that he was instead 4 The Commonwealth also argues that Rucker opened the door to this evidence by putting his mental state at issue during opening statement “Generally stated, ‘opening the door’ to otherwise inadmissible evidence is a form of waiver that happens when one party's use of inadmissible evidence justifies the opposing party!s rebuttal of that evidence with equally inadmissible proof.” Commonwealth v. Stone, 291 S.W.3d 696, 701-02 (Ky. 2009] (citing Purcell v. Commonwealth, 149 S.W.3d 382, 399 (Ky. 2004]]-.

2017"Generally stated, ‘opening the door' to otherwise inadmissible evidence is a form of waiver that happens when one party's use of inadmissible evidence justifies the opposing party’s rebuttal of that evidence with equally inadmissible proof.” Commonwealth v. Stone, 291 S.W.3d 696, 701-02 (Ky. 2009) (citing Purcell v. Commonwealth, 149 S.W.3d 382, 399 (Ky. 2004)). lAfhile evidence of conversations occurring prior to Farris’s death, would be relevant to Rucker’s state of mind at the time he committed the offense, messages written after Rucker killed Farris and disposed of her body are generally

2025This form of immunity shields only “the negligent performance by a public officer or employee of (1) discretionary acts or functions, i.e., those involving the exercise of discretion and judgment, or personal deliberation, decision, and judgment . . . ; (2) in good faith; and (3) within the scope of the employee’s authority[.]” Id. “[A]t their core, discretionary acts are those involving quasi-judicial or policy-making decisions.” Marson v. Thomason, 438 S.W.3d 292, 297 (Ky. 2014).

2024Because these immunities are “functionally the same” in the context of this appeal, id., and the terms are often used interchangeably, see Yanero, 65 S.W.3d at 519 , we will refer to the form of immunity at issue in this appeal as “sovereign immunity.” -20- institutions to the Department via the same KRS 45.237 et seq. procedure.

2024Accordingly, KRE 106 “allows a party to introduce the remainder of a statement offered by an adverse party for the purpose of putting the statement in its proper context and avoiding a misleading impression.” Soto v. Commonwealth, 139 S.W.3d 827, 865-66 (Ky. 2004).

2024Accordingly, KRE 106 “allows a party to introduce the remainder of a statement offered by an adverse party for the purpose of putting the statement in its proper context and avoiding a misleading impression.” Soto v. Commonwealth, 139 S.W.3d 827, 865-66 (Ky. 2004).

2022See Norris v. Commonwealth, 89 S.W.3d 411, 414 (Ky. 2002) (“In a typical case, a witness will make an inadmissible 17 assertion and the opposing party is then permitted to introduce evidence to the contrary.”); Stone v. Commonwealth, 291 S.W.3d 696, 701-02 (Ky. 2009) (“Generally stated, ‘opening the door’ to otherwise inadmissible evidence is a form of waiver that happens when one party’s use of inadmissible evidence justifies the opposing party’s rebuttal of that evidence with equally inadmissible proof.”).

2016As we recognized in Commonwealth v. Stone, 291 S.W.3d 696, 701-02 (Ky.2009), “[gjenerally stated, ‘opening the door’ to otherwise inadmissible evidence is a form of waiver that happens when one party’s use of inadmissible evidence justifies the opposing party’s rebuttal of that evidence with equally inadmissible proof.” As this Court has further explained, “when one party introduces improper evidence, such ‘opens the door’ for the other party to introduce improper evidence in rebuttal whose only claim to admission is that it explains or rebuts the prior inadmissible evidence.” Metcalf v. Commo

1942The opinion in that case set out the form of an instruction that should be given when instructing the jury on statutory rate of speed and duties of the driver of a motor vehicle, but later, in the case of Nowak v. Joseph, 275 Ky. 470 , 121 S. W. (2d) 939, 941 , the form of instruction prescribed in the Toon case, supra, was modified and an approved in *92 struction pertaining to questions like and similar to the one here involved relating to the duties of drivers of motor vehicles, was prescribed as indicated in that opinion.

1942The opinion in that case set out the form of an instruction that should be given when instructing the jury on statutory rate of speed and duties of the driver of a motor vehicle, but later, in the case of Nowak v. Joseph, 275 Ky. 470 , 121 S. W. (2d) 939, 941 , the form of instruction prescribed in the Toon case, supra, was modified and an approved in *92 struction pertaining to questions like and similar to the one here involved relating to the duties of drivers of motor vehicles, was prescribed as indicated in that opinion.

2025Library v. Clark, 90 S.W.3d 53, 62-63 (Ky. 2002) (noting that in absence of documents or a privilege log, court was unable on writ petition “to determine by de novo review whether any of the communications fall within the lawyer-client privilege”).

2025This form of immunity shields only “the negligent performance by a public officer or employee of (1) discretionary acts or functions, i.e., those involving the exercise of discretion and judgment, or personal deliberation, decision, and judgment . . . ; (2) in good faith; and (3) within the scope of the employee’s authority[.]” Id. “[A]t their core, discretionary acts are those involving quasi-judicial or policy-making decisions.” Marson v. Thomason, 438 S.W.3d 292, 297 (Ky. 2014).

2025Immunity is provided for discretionary acts because the “courts should not be called upon to pass judgment on policy decisions made by members of coordinate branches of government in the context of tort actions, because such actions furnish an inadequate crucible for testing the merits of social, political or economic policy.” Yanero, 65 S.W.3d at 519 . -5- By contrast, immunity from tort liability is not afforded to government officials “for the negligent performance of a ministerial act.” Patton v. Bickford, 529 S.W.3d 717, 724 (Ky. 2016), as modified on denial of rehearing (Aug. 24, 2017).

2025Immunity is provided for discretionary acts because the “courts should not be called upon to pass judgment on policy decisions made by members of coordinate branches of government in the context of tort actions, because such actions furnish an inadequate crucible for testing the merits of social, political or economic policy.” Yanero, 65 S.W.3d at 519 . -5- By contrast, immunity from tort liability is not afforded to government officials “for the negligent performance of a ministerial act.” Patton v. Bickford, 529 S.W.3d 717, 724 (Ky. 2016), as modified on denial of rehearing (Aug. 24, 2017).

2024“Generally stated, ‘opening the door’ to otherwise inadmissible evidence is a form of waiver that happens when one party’s use of inadmissible evidence justifies the opposing party’s rebuttal of that evidence with equally inadmissible proof.” Fairley v. Commonwealth, 527 S.W.3d 792, 802 (Ky. 2017) (quoting Commonwealth v. Stone, 291 S.W.3d 696, 701-02 (Ky. 2009)). -9- The main thrust of Workman’s appeal on this issue is that a recent Supreme Court case, Hemphill v. New York, 595 U.S. 140 , 142 S. Ct. 681 , 211 L.

2024We must determine whether the trial court’s decision was “arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999). 6 “Generally stated, ‘opening the door’ to otherwise inadmissible evidence is a form of waiver that happens when one party’s use of inadmissible evidence justifies the opposing party’s rebuttal of that evidence with equally inadmissible proof.” Commonwealth v. Stone, 291 S.W.3d 696, 701-02 (Ky. 2009).

2022The Kentucky Supreme Court has held that “opening the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence is a form of waiver that happens when one party’s use of inadmissible evidence justifies the opposing party’s rebuttal of that evidence with equally inadmissible proof.” Graham v. Commonwealth, 571 S.W.3d 575, 582 (Ky. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2021See Yates v. Commonwealth, 958 S.W.2d 306, 308 (Ky. 1997) (holding RCr 7.26(1) only requires production of statements; no requirement limits testimony to the four corners of a document).

2017Purcell v. Commonipealth, 149 S.W.3d 382, 399 (Ky. 2004) overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Prater, 324 S.W.3d 393, 400-01 (Ky·. 2010) (citing Kentucky Rule 9f Evidence (KRE) 405(a)).

2016As we recognized in Commonwealth v. Stone, 291 S.W.3d 696, 701-02 (Ky.2009), “[gjenerally stated, ‘opening the door’ to otherwise inadmissible evidence is a form of waiver that happens when one party’s use of inadmissible evidence justifies the opposing party’s rebuttal of that evidence with equally inadmissible proof.” As this Court has further explained, “when one party introduces improper evidence, such ‘opens the door’ for the other party to introduce improper evidence in rebuttal whose only claim to admission is that it explains or rebuts the prior inadmissible evidence.” Metcalf v. Commo