9 Kentucky opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bray v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2026A statement cannot “be admitted into evidence” when “the victim’s state of mind is not at issue.” Id. (quoting Bray v. Commonwealth, 68 S.W.3d 375, 381 (Ky. 2002)). 2021A statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of declarant's will. 28 See id. (holding that the victim’s mother’s statement that she was scared for the victim “described her emotional state at the moment of Appellant's approach,” and therefore was not a present sense impression because “she was not | 3 | 4 |
Anthony Sturgeon v. Commonwealth of Kentuckygreen2 sentences2026Lawson, The Kentucky Evidence Law Handbook § 8.50[2][a] (2025); Sturgeon v. Commonwealth, 521 S.W.3d 189, 198 (Ky. 2017). 2026An “out-of-court statement that fits within the state of mind exception must still meet the relevancy provisions of KRE 401-403.” Sturgeon, 521 S.W.3d at 198. | 2 | 2 |
Partin v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2021And, for the reasons already articulated, the evidence’s probative 36 68 S.W.3d 375, 381 (Ky. 2002). 37 Id. at 381-82 (quoting Partin v. Commonwealth, 918 S.W.2d 219, 222 (Ky. 1996), overruled on other grounds by Chestnut v. Commonwealth, 250 S.W.3d 288 (Ky. 2008)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 22 value was not substantially outweighed by any prejudicial effect it may have had. | 1 | 1 |
Chico Duwan Rucker v. Commonwealth of Kentuckygreen1 sentence2018See, e.g., Rucker, 521 S.W.3d at 571 (evidence of ultimatum that in three days defendant must either find a job or else leave the victim'~ apartment was properly admitted); Ernst v. Com"?-onwealth, 160 S.W.3d 744, 752-53 (Ky. 2005) (evidence of landlord's intention to initiate eviction proceedings against the defendant in two days was properly admitted). | 1 | 1 |
Ernst v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2018See, e.g., Rucker, 521 S.W.3d at 571 (evidence of ultimatum that in three days defendant must either find a job or else leave the victim'~ apartment was properly admitted); Ernst v. Com"?-onwealth, 160 S.W.3d 744, 752-53 (Ky. 2005) (evidence of landlord's intention to initiate eviction proceedings against the defendant in two days was properly admitted). | 1 | 1 |
Crowe v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2006Crowe v. Commonwealth, 38 S.W.3d 379, 383 (Ky.2001). 2006Crowe v. Commonwealth, 38 S.W.3d 379, 383 (Ky.2001). | 1 | 1 |
Blair v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2005Blair v. Commonwealth, 144 S.W.3d 801, 805 (Ky.2004); Bray, 68 S.W.3d at 381-82 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chestnut v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2021And, for the reasons already articulated, the evidence’s probative 36 68 S.W.3d 375, 381 (Ky. 2002). 37 Id. at 381-82 (quoting Partin v. Commonwealth, 918 S.W.2d 219, 222 (Ky. 1996), overruled on other grounds by Chestnut v. Commonwealth, 250 S.W.3d 288 (Ky. 2008)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 22 value was not substantially outweighed by any prejudicial effect it may have had. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
McCloud v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2021A statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of declarant's will. 28 See id. (holding that the victim’s mother’s statement that she was scared for the victim “described her emotional state at the moment of Appellant's approach,” and therefore was not a present sense impression because “she was not | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Commonwealth v. English
green
1 sentence2021English, 993 S.W.2d at 945 . 39 (Emphasis added). 23 did not involve Lauren contemporaneously describing an event or condition as she was perceiving it or immediately thereafter, and it did not qualify under the state of mind exception because that statement concerned Lauren’s past condition. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Dillon v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2017“The state-of-mind exception is limited to a statement about a then-existing mental state or condition.” Dillon v. Commonwealth, 475 S.W.3d 1 , 22 *198 (Ky. 2015). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Moseley v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2001Cf. Moseley, supra, at 461 . 2001Cf. Moseley, supra, at 461 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Barnes v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1991In Barnes we rejected a claim that the evidence qualified "under the present state of mind exception to the hearsay rule," stating the evidence does not "fit[] within a recognized exception" to the hearsay rule. 794 S.W.2d at 167 . 1991In Bames we rejected a claim that the evidence qualified “under the present state of mind exception to the hearsay rule,” stating the evidence does not “fit[ ] within a recognized exception” to the hearsay rule. 794 S.W.2d at 167 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.