kind error in Kentucky

2025“Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution’s general deterrence value, the [prosecutor’s] enforcement priorities, and the case’s relationship to [its] overall -93- enforcement plan are not readily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake.” Id. at 465, 116 S. Ct. at 1486 (quoting Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607 , 105 S. Ct. at 1530 ).

2025“Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution’s general deterrence value, the [prosecutor’s] enforcement priorities, and the case’s relationship to [its] overall -93- enforcement plan are not readily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake.” Id. at 465, 116 S. Ct. at 1486 (quoting Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607 , 105 S. Ct. at 1530 ).

2022Id. at 831 . -12- The Court in Johnson explained the difficulty in understanding this kind of error, (which has been “referred to as the ‘multiple acts’ error, or . . . the ‘duplicitous instruction’ error[,]” as noted in King v. Commonwealth, 554 S.W.3d 343, 352 (Ky. 2018)), as follows: The biggest hurdle is in understanding that cases like this one do not present multiple theories of a crime, but instead multiple distinct crimes under a single count.

2015Wilcher v. Wilcher, 566 S.W.2d 173 (Ky.App.1978). .

1973Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Martin, Ky., 465 S.W.2d 302 .

1960Such was the situation in Frizzell v. Holmes, 131 Ky. 373 , 115 S.W. 246 , where the jailer had been required by law to furnish heat and light for the jail and subsequently the legislature authorized an appropriation of public funds for this expense.

1960Such was the situation in Frizzell v. Holmes, 131 Ky. 373 , 115 S.W. 246 , where the jailer had been required by law to furnish heat and light for the jail and subsequently the legislature authorized an appropriation of public funds for this expense.

1926Co. v. Stewart, 163 Ky. 164 , 173 S. W. 757 , we said: “Where the petition does not show that the comdy where the action is brought is not the proper county in which to bring it . . . objection to the jurisdiction of the court must be made as required by section 118 of the Civil Code:” As pointed out in Richardson v. L. & N. R.

1926Co. v. Stewart, 163 Ky. 164 , 173 S. W. 757 , we said: “Where the petition does not show that the comdy where the action is brought is not the proper county in which to bring it . . . objection to the jurisdiction of the court must be made as required by section 118 of the Civil Code:” As pointed out in Richardson v. L. & N. R.

1915Blanton v. Commonwealth, 147 Ky., 812 , 146 S. W., 10 .

1915Blanton v. Commonwealth, 147 Ky., 812 , 146 S. W., 10 .

1905The rule in a proceeding of this kind is that the inquiry is whether the accused is sane enough to appreciate his situation, to act advisedly in informing his counsel, and to rationally and intelligently conduct his case, so as to secure him a fair and impartial trial. (1 Robinson on Criminal Law, p. 33; Carr on Trial of Lunatics, p. 92; Freeman v. People, 4 Denio, 9 , 47 Am.

1905Dec., 216 ; Guagando v. State, 41 Tex., 626 .) The principle governing where the defendant’s mind is diseased is not different from that where he is suffering from disease from some other organ.