Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 2022–2025 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Caudillgreen2 sentences2025This applies “[w]hen the error arises from giving an unwarranted instruction or failing to give a warranted instruction[.]” Commonwealth v. Caudill, 540 S.W.3d 364, 367 (Ky. 2018). 2025Accordingly, “[w]hen the error arises from giving an unwarranted instruction or failing to give a warranted instruction, we review the decision for abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Caudill, 540 S.W.3d 364, 367 (Ky. 2018) (citing Shaffer 467 S.W.3d at 203 ). | 5 | 5 |
Harp v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2025An “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). | 2 | 2 |
Sargent v. Shaffergreen2 sentences2025Accordingly, “[w]hen the error arises from giving an unwarranted instruction or failing to give a warranted instruction, we review the decision for abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Caudill, 540 S.W.3d 364, 367 (Ky. 2018) (citing Shaffer 467 S.W.3d at 203 ). 2022Sargent v. Shaffer, 467 S.W.3d 198, 203 (Ky. 2015). | 1 | 2 |
Allen v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2025No instruction is warranted, of course, unless supported by the evidence, and thus “an instruction on a lesser included offense is appropriate if, and only if, on the given evidence a reasonable juror could entertain a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt on the greater charge, but believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the lesser charge.” Allen v. Commonwealth, 338 S.W.3d 252, 255 (Ky. 2011) (quoting Osborne v. Commonwealth, 43 S.W.3d 234, 244 (Ky. 2001)). | 1 | 1 |
Osborne v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2025No instruction is warranted, of course, unless supported by the evidence, and thus “an instruction on a lesser included offense is appropriate if, and only if, on the given evidence a reasonable juror could entertain a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt on the greater charge, but believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the lesser charge.” Allen v. Commonwealth, 338 S.W.3d 252, 255 (Ky. 2011) (quoting Osborne v. Commonwealth, 43 S.W.3d 234, 244 (Ky. 2001)). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Hagergreen1 sentence2022Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 9.22. 4 41 S.W.3d 828, 844-47 (Ky. 2001). 5 RCr 9.54. 6 See Reed v. Commonwealth, 738 S.W.2d 818, 822 (Ky. 1987); and Grimes v. McAnulty, 957 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Ky. 1997) (citing Brown v. Commonwealth, 555 S.W.2d 252, 257 (Ky. 1977)). 7 Id. 4 discretion.”8 “The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge’s decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.”9 A defendant is justified in using deadly physical force “only when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against deat | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2022Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 9.22. 4 41 S.W.3d 828, 844-47 (Ky. 2001). 5 RCr 9.54. 6 See Reed v. Commonwealth, 738 S.W.2d 818, 822 (Ky. 1987); and Grimes v. McAnulty, 957 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Ky. 1997) (citing Brown v. Commonwealth, 555 S.W.2d 252, 257 (Ky. 1977)). 7 Id. 4 discretion.”8 “The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge’s decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.”9 A defendant is justified in using deadly physical force “only when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against deat 2022Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 9.22. 4 41 S.W.3d 828, 844-47 (Ky. 2001). 5 RCr 9.54. 6 See Reed v. Commonwealth, 738 S.W.2d 818, 822 (Ky. 1987); and Grimes v. McAnulty, 957 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Ky. 1997) (citing Brown v. Commonwealth, 555 S.W.2d 252, 257 (Ky. 1977)). 7 Id. 4 discretion.”8 “The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge’s decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.”9 A defendant is justified in using deadly physical force “only when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against deat | 1 | 1 |
Reed v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2022Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 9.22. 4 41 S.W.3d 828, 844-47 (Ky. 2001). 5 RCr 9.54. 6 See Reed v. Commonwealth, 738 S.W.2d 818, 822 (Ky. 1987); and Grimes v. McAnulty, 957 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Ky. 1997) (citing Brown v. Commonwealth, 555 S.W.2d 252, 257 (Ky. 1977)). 7 Id. 4 discretion.”8 “The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge’s decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.”9 A defendant is justified in using deadly physical force “only when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against deat | 1 | 1 |
Grimes v. McAnultygreen1 sentence2022Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 9.22. 4 41 S.W.3d 828, 844-47 (Ky. 2001). 5 RCr 9.54. 6 See Reed v. Commonwealth, 738 S.W.2d 818, 822 (Ky. 1987); and Grimes v. McAnulty, 957 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Ky. 1997) (citing Brown v. Commonwealth, 555 S.W.2d 252, 257 (Ky. 1977)). 7 Id. 4 discretion.”8 “The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge’s decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.”9 A defendant is justified in using deadly physical force “only when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against deat | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.