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.
55 Kentucky opinions name it 3 courts 1914–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Martin v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2015RCr 9.54(2) provides that "No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless the party's position has been fairly and adequately presented to the trial judge by an offered instruction or by motion, or unless the party makes objection before the court instructs the jury, stating specifically the matter to which the party objects and the ground or grounds of the objection." In Martin v. Commonwealth, 409 S.W.3d 340 (Ky. 2013) we clarified that "RCr 9.54 imposes upon the party the duty to inform the trial court of its preferences 'regarding 'the giving or the fa 2015RCr 9.54(2) provides that "No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless the party's position has been fairly and adequately presented to the trial judge by an offered instruction or by motion, or unless the party makes objection before the court instructs the jury, stating specifically the matter to which the party objects and the ground or grounds of the objection." In Martin v. Commonwealth, 409 S.W.3d 340 (Ky. 2013) we clarified that "RCr 9.54 imposes upon the party the duty to inform the trial court of its preferences 'regarding 'the giving or the fa | 4 | 8 |
Sand Hill Energy, Inc. v. Smithgreen2 sentences2025(Emphases added.) “The underlying purpose of CR 51(3) is to ‘obtain the best possible trial at the trial court level’ by ‘giv[ing] the trial judge an opportunity to correct any errors before instructing the jury.’” Sand Hill Energy, Inc. v. Smith, 142 S.W.3d 153, 162 (Ky. 2004) (citations and footnotes omitted). -10- When presented with this argument post-trial, the trial court noted that Baird had never objected to the use of the phrase “must prove” in the instruction. 2015The purpose of the rule is to “obtain the best possible, trial at the trial court level by giv[ing] the trial judge an opportunity to correct any errors before instructing the jury.” Sand Hill Energy, Inc. v. Smith, 142 S.W.3d 153, 162 (Ky.2004)(footnotes and internal quotations omitted). | 3 | 3 |
Davis v. Fischer Single Family Homes, Ltd.green1 sentence2020Davis v. Fischer Single Family Homes, Ltd., 231 S.W.3d 767, 776 (Ky. App. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
Minter v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2019WEDDLE’S CONVICTIONS DID NOT VIOLATE HIS DOUBLE JEOPARDY RIGHTS This error was properly preserved by Weddle’s objection to the respective instructions on double jeopardy grounds.10 Though, because Weddle has 9 Minter v. Commonwealth, 415 S.W.3d 614, 618 (Ky. 2013) (citations omitted). 10 Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 9.54(2): “No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless the party's position has been fairly and adequately presented to the trial judge by an offered instruction or by motion, or unless the party makes objection before the court | 1 | 1 |
Derek Early v. Commonwealth of Kentuckygreen1 sentence2019Under our jurisprudence “[djouble jeopardy does not occur when a person is charged with specifically the matter to which the party objects and the ground or grounds of the objection.” 11 Early v. Commonwealth, 470 S.W.3d 729, 737 (Ky. 2015). (“Initially, we note that this issue is unpreserved. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Dukegreen1 sentence2019(Emphasis added.) “Error may not be assigned regarding instructions unless a specific objection is made stating the grounds for such objection.” Commonwealth v. Duke, 750 S.W.2d 432, 433 (Ky. 1988). | 1 | 1 |
Scudamore v. Hortongreen1 sentence2018In Scudamore v. Horton, 426 S.W.2d 142, 146 (Ky. 1968), this court posed the question as "wJ:iether [appellants] can assign one reason for objecting to an instruction in the trial court and a different one on this appeal," and held ' ' "[o]bviously, CR 51 condemns such a practice, and, in consequence, we must hold they cannot now be heard on these matters." (internal quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2013See Travis, 327 S.W.3d at 461-63 ; Smith v. Commonwealth, 366 S.W.3d 399, 401-04 (Ky. 2012). . | 1 | 1 |
Travis v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2013See Travis, 327 S.W.3d at 461-63 ; Smith v. Commonwealth, 366 S.W.3d 399, 401-04 (Ky. 2012). . | 1 | 1 |
Greene v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2011See Greene v. Commonwealth, 197 S.W.3d 76, 81 (Ky.2006) ("[WJhere proof is presented that would support the finding of EED ... the burden switches to the Commonwealth to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.”). . | 1 | 1 |
Clifford v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2003See also Barth v. Commonwealth, Ky., 80 S.W.3d 390, 400 (2001); Clifford v. Commonwealth, Ky., 7 S.W.3d 371, 376 (1999); *436 Davis v. Commonwealth, Ky., 967 S.W.2d 574, 580-81 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
Barth v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2003See also Barth v. Commonwealth, Ky., 80 S.W.3d 390, 400 (2001); Clifford v. Commonwealth, Ky., 7 S.W.3d 371, 376 (1999); *436 Davis v. Commonwealth, Ky., 967 S.W.2d 574, 580-81 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2003See also Barth v. Commonwealth, Ky., 80 S.W.3d 390, 400 (2001); Clifford v. Commonwealth, Ky., 7 S.W.3d 371, 376 (1999); *436 Davis v. Commonwealth, Ky., 967 S.W.2d 574, 580-81 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bowmangreen2 sentences2000Ann. § 609.05(2); People v. Prettyman, 14 Cal.4th 248 , 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 827 , 926 P.2d 1013 (1996); Chance v. State, 685 A.2d 351 (Del.1996); State v. Bowman, 588 A.2d 728, 731 (Me.1991). [1] See RCr 9.54(2): No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless the party's position has been fairly and adequately presented to the trial judge by an offered instruction or by motion, or unless the party makes objection before the court instructs the jury, stating specifically the matter to which the party objects and the ground or grounds of the objection. 2000Id. | 1 | 1 |
Stein v. Louisville Water Co.green1 sentence1967Neither do we think the trial court was in error in refusing to give an instruction offered by appellant declaring that the accident was unavoidable. “[I]f the accident producing the injury could have been prevented by either person by means suggested by common prudence it is not deemed unavoidable.” Stein v. Louisville Water Co., Ky., 249 S.W.2d 750, 753 (1952); 65 C.J.S. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gibbs v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2017Stated differently, 19 RCr 9.54(1). 20 RCr 9.54(2). 21Gibbs v. Commonwealth, 208 S.W.3d 848 ,. 853 (Ky. 2006), overru.led on other grounds by Padgett v. Commonwealth, 312 S.W.3d 336 (Ky. 2010). 9 Bandy never fairly ·and adequately presented this alleged failure to the trial court by an offered instruction or by motion, nor did he make an objection before the court instructed the jury. 2017Stated differently, 19 RCr 9 ..54(1). 20 RCr 9.54(2). . 21 Gibbs v. Commonwealth, 208 S.W.3d 848 ,.853 (Ky. 2006), overruled on other grounds by Padgett v. Commonwealth, 312 S.W.3d 336 (Ky. 2010). 9 ' Bandy n·ever fairly ·and adequately presented this alleged failure to the trial court by an offered instruction or by motion, nor did he make an objection before the court instructed the jury. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Padgett v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2017Stated differently, 19 RCr 9.54(1). 20 RCr 9.54(2). 21Gibbs v. Commonwealth, 208 S.W.3d 848 ,. 853 (Ky. 2006), overru.led on other grounds by Padgett v. Commonwealth, 312 S.W.3d 336 (Ky. 2010). 9 Bandy never fairly ·and adequately presented this alleged failure to the trial court by an offered instruction or by motion, nor did he make an objection before the court instructed the jury. 2017Stated differently, 19 RCr 9 ..54(1). 20 RCr 9.54(2). . 21 Gibbs v. Commonwealth, 208 S.W.3d 848 ,.853 (Ky. 2006), overruled on other grounds by Padgett v. Commonwealth, 312 S.W.3d 336 (Ky. 2010). 9 ' Bandy n·ever fairly ·and adequately presented this alleged failure to the trial court by an offered instruction or by motion, nor did he make an objection before the court instructed the jury. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Hopper v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1985Hopper v. Commonwealth, Ky., 516 S.W.2d 855 (1974). 1977RCr 9.54(2) provides: “No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless he has fairly and adequately presented his position by an offered instruction or by motion, or unless he makes objection before the court instructs the jury, stating specifically the matter to which he objects and the ground or grounds of his objection.” In Hopper v. Commonwealth, Ky., 516 S.W.2d 855 (1974), this court said: “* * * It is now the duty of the accused to assure himself that the jury is properly instructed at the time of submission. | 2 | 1977–1985 |
West Kentucky Coal Co. v. Davis
neutral
2 sentences1914But even if it he assumed that the case is one where the trial court should have followed our practice and prepared or directed the preparation of a proper instruction covering the point attempted to he covered hy the offered instruction: West Ky. Coal Co. v. Davis, 138 Ky., 667 , 128 S. W., 1074 ; Crane v. Congleton & Bro., 116 S. W. 341 ; L. & N. R. 1914But even if it he assumed that the case is one where the trial court should have followed our practice and prepared or directed the preparation of a proper instruction covering the point attempted to he covered hy the offered instruction: West Ky. Coal Co. v. Davis, 138 Ky., 667 , 128 S. W., 1074 ; Crane v. Congleton & Bro., 116 S. W. 341 ; L. & N. R. | 2 | 1914–1931 |
Commonwealth v. English
green
1 sentence2022Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Grimes v. McAnulty
green
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Southeastern Greyhound Lines v. Harden's Adm'x
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Bartley v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2013RCr 9.54(2) provides: “No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless the party's position has been fairly and adequately presented to the trial judge by an offered instruction or by motion, or unless the party makes objection before the court instructs the jury, stating specifically the matter to which the party objects and the ground or grounds of the objection.” And, "where, as here, it is debatable whether a particular offense is a 'lesser included’ adherence to RCr 9.54(2) is all the more important.” Bartley, 400 S.W.3d at 732 . . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
1 sentence2010Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
James Graham Brown Foundation, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2006We also find the Commonwealth's proffered instruction to more accurately state the law as spoken to in Brown Foundation, supra . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Prettyman
red
2 sentences2000Ann. § 609.05(2); People v. Prettyman, 14 Cal.4th 248 , 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 827 , 926 P.2d 1013 (1996); Chance v. State, 685 A.2d 351 (Del.1996); State v. Bowman, 588 A.2d 728, 731 (Me.1991). [1] See RCr 9.54(2): No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless the party's position has been fairly and adequately presented to the trial judge by an offered instruction or by motion, or unless the party makes objection before the court instructs the jury, stating specifically the matter to which the party objects and the ground or grounds of the objection. 2000Ann. § 609.05(2); People v. Prettyman, 14 Cal.4th 248 , 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 827 , 926 P.2d 1013 (1996); Chance v. State, 685 A.2d 351 (Del.1996); State v. Bowman, 588 A.2d 728, 731 (Me.1991). [1] See RCr 9.54(2): No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless the party's position has been fairly and adequately presented to the trial judge by an offered instruction or by motion, or unless the party makes objection before the court instructs the jury, stating specifically the matter to which the party objects and the ground or grounds of the objection. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Chance v. State
green
1 sentence2000Ann. § 609.05(2); People v. Prettyman, 14 Cal.4th 248 , 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 827 , 926 P.2d 1013 (1996); Chance v. State, 685 A.2d 351 (Del.1996); State v. Bowman, 588 A.2d 728, 731 (Me.1991). [1] See RCr 9.54(2): No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless the party's position has been fairly and adequately presented to the trial judge by an offered instruction or by motion, or unless the party makes objection before the court instructs the jury, stating specifically the matter to which the party objects and the ground or grounds of the objection. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Ray v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1980This means that the statute is not applicable to a person acting with a culpable mental state other than ‘intentionally.’ ” Movant, the Commonwealth, contends that the trial court properly refused to give the respondent’s offered instruction on the basis of Ray v. Commonwealth, Ky., 550 S.W.2d 482 (1977). 1980In Ray, supra, the victim was struck unconscious by one of three men who committed the robbery. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Spencer v. Matthews
green
1 sentence1964Appellant cites, in support of his contention that the trial court erred in failing to give the offered instruction, the case of Spencer v. Matthews, Ky., 247 S.W.2d 515 , and that of Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Mattingly, Ky., 318 S.W.2d 844 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mattingly
green
1 sentence1964Appellant cites, in support of his contention that the trial court erred in failing to give the offered instruction, the case of Spencer v. Matthews, Ky., 247 S.W.2d 515 , and that of Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Mattingly, Ky., 318 S.W.2d 844 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| Collis v. Hoskins neutral | 1 | 1950–1950 |
| Duggins v. Commonwealth neutral | 1 | 1949–1949 |
| Harris v. State neutral | 1 | 1949–1949 |
| Leming's Administrator v. Leachman neutral | 1 | 1945–1945 |
| Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Cornett's Administrator neutral | 1 | 1940–1940 |
| Codell Construction Co. v. Steele green | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| Bullock v. Young green | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| Moise v. Burton neutral | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| McGraw v. Ayers green | 1 | 1938–1938 |
| Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Craig neutral | 1 | 1938–1938 |
| Chesapeake Ohio Railway Company v. Music neutral | 1 | 1938–1938 |
| Royal Collieries Company v. Wells neutral | 1 | 1938–1938 |
| Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Howard's Administratrix neutral | 1 | 1938–1938 |
| Whitmire v. Boyd green | 1 | 1938–1938 |
| Berl v. Crutcher green | 1 | 1938–1938 |
| Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Howard green | 1 | 1938–1938 |
| Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. DeAtley neutral | 1 | 1938–1938 |
| Saunders' Executors v. Armour & Co. neutral | 1 | 1937–1937 |
| Cumberland Bus Company v. Helton neutral | 1 | 1935–1935 |
| Southeastern Telephone Co. v. Payne neutral | 1 | 1935–1935 |
| Jackson's Administrator v. Rose green | 1 | 1935–1935 |
| Metts' Administrator v. Louisville Gas & Electric Co. neutral | 1 | 1935–1935 |
| Trout's Administrator v. Ohio Valley Electric Railway Co. neutral | 1 | 1935–1935 |
| People ex rel. Commissioners of Highways v. Board of Supervisors neutral | 1 | 1934–1934 |
| Edge v. Ott neutral | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.