federal constitutional error in Kentucky

2025Therefore, they implicated his constitutional right to present his defense. [When] errors . . . have a constitutional dimension, the standard for finding the errors to be harmless is much higher. “[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must 27 be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967); see also Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 622 (1993) (“[T]he standard for determining whether a conviction must be set aside because of federal constitutional error is whether the error ‘was harml

2021Chapman advises that: An error in admitting plainly relevant evidence which possibly influenced the jury adversely to a litigant cannot . . . be conceived of as harmless. . . . [Before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless beyond a reasonable doubt] [we consider] whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction[.] 386 U.S. at 23-24 , 87 S. Ct. at 828 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2021However, “before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the [reviewing] court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Heard, 217 S.W.3d at 244 (citations omitted).

2011See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967); Heard v. Commonwealth, 217 S.W.3d 240, 244 (Ky. 2007) ("It must not be overlooked that 'before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the [reviewing] court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.") (quotation omitted).

2025Therefore, they implicated his constitutional right to present his defense. [When] errors . . . have a constitutional dimension, the standard for finding the errors to be harmless is much higher. “[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must 27 be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967); see also Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 622 (1993) (“[T]he standard for determining whether a conviction must be set aside because of federal constitutional error is whether the error ‘was harml

2015Because the errors thus have a constitutional dimension, the standard for finding the errors to be harmless is much higher. “[Bjefore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); see also Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 622 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (“[T]he standard for determining whether a conviction must be set aside because of federal constitutional error is whether the error ‘was harmless beyo

2018In Staples v. Commonwealth, this court stated, “[hjarmless error analysis applied to a constitutional error, such as the Confrontation Clause violation . . . involves considering the improper evidence in the context of the entire trial and asking whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” 454 S.W.3d 803, 826-27 (Ky. 2014) (internal quotations omitted).

2018Therefore, having held the trial court erred in conducting voir dire in Truss’s absence, we must now determine if that error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 7 In Staples v. Commonwealth, this court stated, “[h]armless error analysis applied to a constitutional error, . . . involves considering the improper evidence in the context of the entire trial and asking whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” 454 S.W.3d 803, 826-27 (Ky. 2014) (internal quotations omitted).

2016Barth v. Commonwealth, 80 S.W.3d 390, 395 (Ky.2001) (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)) (“before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the [reviewing] court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”).

2010Heard v. Commonwealth, 217 S.W.3d 240, 244 (Ky.2007). “[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the [reviewing] court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Barth v. Commonwealth, 80 S.W.3d 390, 395 (Ky.2001) (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967))).

2008In Commonwealth v. Burge, 947 S.W.2d 805 (Ky.1996), this Court again adopted the federal constitutional test for double jeopardy claims as outlined in the seminal United States Supreme Court case of Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), after departing from its usage for a period of time.

2008In Commonwealth v. BuLgg, 947 S.W.2d 805 (Ky. 1996), this Court again adopted the federal constitutional test for double jeopardy claims as outlined in the seminal United States Supreme Court case of Blockbu[ger v. United States, 284 U.S . 299, 52 &CL 180, 76 L-Ed . 306 (1932), after departing from its usage for a period of time .

2024Clair's sentence violates the Constitution[]”); see Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 (1962) (holding that the “conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement [of habitual violator statute] is not in itself a federal constitutional violation . . . unless based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification[]”).

1979Within the limits set by the legislature’s constitutionally valid definition of chargeable offenses, “the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation” so long as “the selection was [not] deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.” Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 , 82 S.Ct. 501, 506 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446 .

2025The Court recognized that -12- before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Cantrell v. Commonwealth, 288 S.W.3d 291, 297 (Ky. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

2023Bowling v. Commonwealth, 553 S.W.3d 231, 241 (Ky. 2018).

2023Before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the reviewing court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”17 An error is considered 17 See, e.g., Quist v. Commonwealth, 338 S.W.3d 778, 782 (Ky. App. 2010) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). 25 harmless if it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict obtained.18 While I ultimately assert that there was insufficient evidence of serious physical injury, assuming arguendo that the evidence was sufficient, Dr. Tucker’s testimony was cumulati

2021We test for harmless error by inquiring as to “any substantial possibility that the outcome of the case would have been different without the presence of that error.” Thacker v. Commonwealth, 194 S.W.3d 287, 291 (Ky. 2006) (citing Commonwealth v. McIntosh, 646 S.W.2d 43, 45 (Ky. 1983)).

2021We test for harmless error by inquiring as to “any substantial possibility that the outcome of the case would have been different without the presence of that error.” Thacker v. Commonwealth, 194 S.W.3d 287, 291 (Ky. 2006) (citing Commonwealth v. McIntosh, 646 S.W.2d 43, 45 (Ky. 1983)).

2019A person of means would not have been subjected to the initial denial of funds or being sent to an institution that declared it could not act as an independent defense expert and would not have been subjected to the side-switching. “[BJefore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Winstead v. Commonwealth, 283 S.W.3d 678 , 689 n. 1 (2009) (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967); RCr 9.24 (“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceed

2017Clair v. Commonwealth, 451 S.W.3d 597, 632 (Ky. 2014) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967)).

2009See, e.g., Roberts, 291 Ill.Dec. 674 , 824 N.E.2d at 261 (criticizing trial court for not questioning recalled alternate juror to ensure alternate not biased due to outside influences); People v. Patterson, 832 P.2d 1083, 1085 (Colo.Ct.App. 1992) (holding that there was no evidence to show that defendant was not prejudiced by post-submission juror substitution because, inter alia, alternate juror was not questioned about his activities while discharged until after verdict rendered). 42 .Though the trial court admonished the juror not to discuss the case with anyone after he was permitted to le

2009See, e.g., Roberts, 291 Ill.Dec. 674 , 824 N.E.2d at 261 (criticizing trial court for not questioning recalled alternate juror to ensure alternate not biased due to outside influences); People v. Patterson, 832 P.2d 1083, 1085 (Colo.Ct.App. 1992) (holding that there was no evidence to show that defendant was not prejudiced by post-submission juror substitution because, inter alia, alternate juror was not questioned about his activities while discharged until after verdict rendered). 42 .Though the trial court admonished the juror not to discuss the case with anyone after he was permitted to le

2009See, e.g., Roberts, 291 Ill.Dec. 674 , 824 N.E.2d at 261 (criticizing trial court for not questioning recalled alternate juror to ensure alternate not biased due to outside influences); People v. Patterson, 832 P.2d 1083, 1085 (Colo.Ct.App. 1992) (holding that there was no evidence to show that defendant was not prejudiced by post-submission juror substitution because, inter alia, alternate juror was not questioned about his activities while discharged until after verdict rendered). 42 .Though the trial court admonished the juror not to discuss the case with anyone after he was permitted to le

2009Our research reveals that neither this Court nor the Kentucky Court of Appeals has cited Giles in any opinion, published or unpublished. [51] Id. at 128 S.Ct. 2683 , Because Giles is based upon on a federal constitutional principle (i.e., the Confrontation Clause), we must follow it. [52] In re Rolandis G., 232 Ill.2d 13 , 327 Ill.

2009Our research reveals that neither this Court nor the Kentucky Court of Appeals has cited Giles in any opinion, published or unpublished. [51] Id. at 128 S.Ct. 2683 , Because Giles is based upon on a federal constitutional principle (i.e., the Confrontation Clause), we must follow it. [52] In re Rolandis G., 232 Ill.2d 13 , 327 Ill.

2006However, under the Fourteenth Amendment, a competency hearing is only necessary “where there is substantial evidence that a defendant is incompetent.” Filiaggi v. Bagley, 445 F.3d 851, 858 (6th Cir.2006).

2006However, under the Fourteenth Amendment, a competency hearing is only necessary "where there is substantial evidence that a defendant is incompetent." Filiaggi v. Bagley, 445 F.3d 851, 858 (6th Cir.2006).

1999Violation of the Bruton rule is subject to the harmless error analysis of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), which holds “that before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the [reviewing] court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” See Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 288 (1969); see also Cosby v. Commonwealth, Ky., 776 S.W.2d 367, 370 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1063 , 110 S.Ct. 880 , 107 L.Ed.2d 963 (1990).

1999Violation of the Bruton rule is subject to the harmless error analysis of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), which holds “that before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the [reviewing] court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” See Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 288 (1969); see also Cosby v. Commonwealth, Ky., 776 S.W.2d 367, 370 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1063 , 110 S.Ct. 880 , 107 L.Ed.2d 963 (1990).

1999Violation of the Bruton rule is subject to the harmless error analysis of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), which holds “that before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the [reviewing] court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” See Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 288 (1969); see also Cosby v. Commonwealth, Ky., 776 S.W.2d 367, 370 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1063 , 110 S.Ct. 880 , 107 L.Ed.2d 963 (1990).

1999Violation of the Bruton rule is subject to the harmless error analysis of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), which holds “that before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the [reviewing] court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” See Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 288 (1969); see also Cosby v. Commonwealth, Ky., 776 S.W.2d 367, 370 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1063 , 110 S.Ct. 880 , 107 L.Ed.2d 963 (1990).

1999Violation of the Bruton rule is subject to the harmless error analysis of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), which holds “that before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the [reviewing] court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” See Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 288 (1969); see also Cosby v. Commonwealth, Ky., 776 S.W.2d 367, 370 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1063 , 110 S.Ct. 880 , 107 L.Ed.2d 963 (1990).