reasoning rule in Kentucky

2023TAYLOR, JUDGE, CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART: While I concur with the reasoning and analysis by the majority regarding Martin’s 19 Rice v. Rice, 15 N.W. 545, 547 (Mich. 1883) (“A number of witnesses who had known the decedent in his life-time, and had seen more or less of him at about the time the will was executed, but who were not medical experts, were allowed to testify that in their opinions he was [or was not] then insane.”). -26- capacity to amend his Trust and his status as a party below, I must respectfully dissent regarding the disposition of the case and write separately

2014The Court reiterated the same reasoning and rule in Keifer v. Keifer, 354 S.W.3d 123, 126 (Ky.2011).

2012Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 393-94 , 88 S.Ct. 967 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968); see also Shull v. Commonwealth, 475 S.W.2d 469, 471-72 (Ky.1971). .

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009Crim.App.1991) ("Numerous courts have allowed an expert to testify in rebuttal to explain delay in reporting as well as why a child recants."); State v. Middleton, 294 Or. 427 , 657 P.2d 1215, 1220-21 (1983) ("If a qualified expert offers to give testimony on whether the reaction of one child is similar to the reaction of most victims of familial child abuse, and if believed this would assist the jury in deciding whether a rape occurred, it may be admitted."); Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 348 Pa.Super. 368 , 502 A.2d 253, 257 (1985) disapproved by Commonwealth v. Davis, 518 Pa. 77 , 541 A.2d 315,

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009Crim.App.1991) ("Numerous courts have allowed an expert to testify in rebuttal to explain delay in reporting as well as why a child recants."); State v. Middleton, 294 Or. 427 , 657 P.2d 1215, 1220-21 (1983) ("If a qualified expert offers to give testimony on whether the reaction of one child is similar to the reaction of most victims of familial child abuse, and if believed this would assist the jury in deciding whether a rape occurred, it may be admitted."); Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 348 Pa.Super. 368 , 502 A.2d 253, 257 (1985) disapproved by Commonwealth v. Davis, 518 Pa. 77 , 541 A.2d 315,

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) ("[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper."); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) ("General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible."); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) ("We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009Crim.App.1991) ("Numerous courts have allowed an expert to testify in rebuttal to explain delay in reporting as well as why a child recants."); State v. Middleton, 294 Or. 427 , 657 P.2d 1215, 1220-21 (1983) ("If a qualified expert offers to give testimony on whether the reaction of one child is similar to the reaction of most victims of familial child abuse, and if believed this would assist the jury in deciding whether a rape occurred, it may be admitted."); Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 348 Pa.Super. 368 , 502 A.2d 253, 257 (1985) disapproved by Commonwealth v. Davis, 518 Pa. 77 , 541 A.2d 315,

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) ("[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper."); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) ("General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible."); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) ("We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) ("[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper."); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) ("General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible."); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) ("We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) ("[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper."); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) ("General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible."); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) ("We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) ("[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper."); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) ("General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible."); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) ("We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin

2009App.1987) (testimony on the typical behavioral characteristics of victim of child abuse was admissible); Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1992) (“[T]estimony by an expert as to certain behavior common to sexually abused children is proper.”); State v. Price, 165 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (“General profile testimony describes a generalization of behaviors and other characteristics commonly found in victims of sexual abuse which is usually admissible.”); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (1986) (“We hold that expert testimony is admissible for the purpose of helpin