crime violation in Kentucky

2021In Anderson, we explicitly held that conviction for first-degree assault “when there is a failure of proof on an element of the crime is a violation of Due Process and thus a manifest injustice pursuant to RCr 10.26.” Id. at 583 .

2014Therefore, under a plain reading of KRS 500.020(1), Louisville Metro lacks the authority to enact the Ordinances, “unless designated a crime or violation under ... another statute of this state.” Id.

2006Id. at 711 .

2005Appellant cites Marshall v. Commonwealth, 482 S.W.2d 765 (Ky.1972), where we held that it was reversible error to admit evidence of co-defendants' prior convictions to prove their propensity to burglarize a store.

2005Appellant cites Marshall v. Commonwealth, 482 S.W.2d 765 (Ky.1972), where we held that it was reversible error to admit evidence of co-defendants’ prior convictions to prove their propensity to burglarize a store.

1977Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282 , 97 S.Ct. 2290 , 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977).

1977Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282 , 97 S.Ct. 2290 , 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977).

1971See Davis v. People, 22 Colo. 1 , 43 P. 122 ; State v. McNeil, 161 Wash. 221 , 296 P. 555 .

1971See Davis v. People, 22 Colo. 1 , 43 P. 122 ; State v. McNeil, 161 Wash. 221 , 296 P. 555 .

1952In Broadway & *339 Fourth Avenue Realty Co. v. Local No. 181, Ky., 244 S.W.2d 746, 748 , we made it clear “ * * * that an act by an employer which would be a crime or a violation of a legislative' enactment or contrary to a defined public policy is not a proper object of concerted action against him by workers. ⅜ * * We now come to the question of whether picketing in this case has been and is now illegal because its purpose is to coerce Blue Boar to violate the law of this state as set forth in KRS 336.130.

1940In support of ground 1 we are cited to Appalachian Stave Co. v. Pickard, 266 Ky. 565 , 99 S. W. (2d) 472 , in which it was held that in an action arising out of an au *448 tomobile collision testimony of witnesses concerning tire tracks which were pointed out to them at the scene of the accident on.the following day by an occupant of plaintiff’s automobile was inadmissible, as being hearsay, notwithstanding such witnesses and occupant were cross examined.

1940In support of ground 1 we are cited to Appalachian Stave Co. v. Pickard, 266 Ky. 565 , 99 S. W. (2d) 472 , in which it was held that in an action arising out of an au *448 tomobile collision testimony of witnesses concerning tire tracks which were pointed out to them at the scene of the accident on.the following day by an occupant of plaintiff’s automobile was inadmissible, as being hearsay, notwithstanding such witnesses and occupant were cross examined.

1926McClanahan v. Commonwealth, 197 Ky. 457 ; Hennessy v. Commonwealth, 88 Ky. 301 ; Lowery v. Commonwealth, 191 Ky. 657 .

1926McClanahan v. Commonwealth, 197 Ky. 457 ; Hennessy v. Commonwealth, 88 Ky. 301 ; Lowery v. Commonwealth, 191 Ky. 657 .

1926McClanahan v. Commonwealth, 197 Ky. 457 ; Hennessy v. Commonwealth, 88 Ky. 301 ; Lowery v. Commonwealth, 191 Ky. 657 .