has long rule in Kentucky

2013See Johnson v. Commonwealth, 311 Ky. 182 , 223 S.W.2d 741, 743 (1949) ("This statute [now-repealed by KRS 29A.280] makes it necessary for a party to inform himself as to the qualifications of jurors before the jury is sworn in order that he may exercise his right of challenge, general or peremptory, but the statute does not apply where he has been misled by a false answer of the juror on the latter's voir dire, and he has thus been deprived of his right of challenge.”); Polk v. Commonwealth, 574 S.W.2d 335, 336-37 (Ky.App.1978) (“When bias is apparent or known before trial, and a juror is perm

2013See Johnson v. Commonwealth, 311 Ky. 182 , 223 S.W.2d 741, 743 (1949) ("This statute [now-repealed by KRS 29A.280] makes it necessary for a party to inform himself as to the qualifications of jurors before the jury is sworn in order that he may exercise his right of challenge, general or peremptory, but the statute does not apply where he has been misled by a false answer of the juror on the latter's voir dire, and he has thus been deprived of his right of challenge.”); Polk v. Commonwealth, 574 S.W.2d 335, 336-37 (Ky.App.1978) (“When bias is apparent or known before trial, and a juror is perm

2013See Johnson v. Commonwealth, 311 Ky. 182 , 223 S.W.2d 741, 743 (1949) ("This statute [now-repealed by KRS 29A.280] makes it necessary for a party to inform himself as to the qualifications of jurors before the jury is sworn in order that he may exercise his right of challenge, general or peremptory, but the statute does not apply where he has been misled by a false answer of the juror on the latter's voir dire, and he has thus been deprived of his right of challenge.”); Polk v. Commonwealth, 574 S.W.2d 335, 336-37 (Ky.App.1978) (“When bias is apparent or known before trial, and a juror is perm

2012See Johnson v. Commonwealth, 311 Ky. 182, 186 , 223 S.W.2d 741, 743 (1949) ("This statute [now-repealed KRS 29.020(2) ] makes it necessary for a party to inform himself as to the qualifications of jurors before the jury is sworn in order that he may exercise his right of challenge, general or peremptory, but the statute does not apply where he has been misled by a false answer of the juror on the latter’s voir dire, and he has thus been deprived of his right of challenge.”); Polk v. Commonwealth, 574 S.W.2d 335, 336-37 (Ky.App.1978) ("When bias is apparent or known before trial, and a juror is

2024KRE 614(b) permits a trial court to conduct interrogation of witnesses, “whether called by itself or by a party.” While this has long been the rule in Kentucky, a trial court should do so cautiously in the presence of the jury so as not to allow “personal opinions to leak into the crucible[,]” because the court’s “observations and comments usually carry such weight with the jury[.]” Davidson v. Commonwealth, 394 S.W.2d 911, 912 (Ky. 1965) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Sigrist v. Commonwealth, 660 S.W.3d 636 , 642 (Ky. App. 2022) (citation omitted) (stating the rule

2011Chittum v. Abell, 485 S.W.2d 231, 237 (Ky.1972) (“judgment to the extent it adjudged [defendants] liable to [plaintiffs], reserving the determination of damages for a later trial, was not a final judgment, notwithstanding the trial court’s CR 54.02 recitations, because it did not fully adjudicate the damage claim....”).

2001E.g., Taylor v. Commonwealth, Ky., 449 S.W.2d 208, 211 (1969) (witness's testimony that the defendant was a peaceful person who had never been in trouble with the law opened the door for proof of the defendant's bad reputation for peacefulness).