Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 218
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 218.020 (2026)

Repealed, 1972

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Catchline at repeal: Acts prohibited. History: Repealed 1972 Ky. Acts ch. 226, sec. 33. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 3716-2.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases, 1966–2013 · leading case: Hohnke v. Commonwealth, 451 S.W.2d 162 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hohnke v. Commonwealth, 451 S.W.2d 162 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 8× “020 which provides: "It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, possess, have under his control, sell, prescribe, administer, dispense, or compound any narcotic drug, except as authorized in this chapter." The term "narcotic drug" as used in KRS 218.”
Rudolph v. Commonwealth, 564 S.W.2d 1 (Ky. 1977). · cites it 2× “The three previous drug-possession convictions of Rudolph were for violating KRS 218.020, a section of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act which was repealed with the enactment of KRS Chapter 218A in 1972.”
Coates v. Commonwealth, 469 S.W.2d 346 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 3× “Appellant was convicted under KRS 218.020 of possessing marijuana, and was fined $100 and sentenced to two years in the penitentiary.”
Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 411 S.W.3d 741 (Ky. 2013). “The record does not indicate any argument up to this point in the proceedings by Hamilton and Cole regarding the constitutionality of KRS 218.020(3). At the evidentiary hearing, the parties stipulated that the Cabinet, in altering the classification of buprenorphine, relied upon…”
Shanks v. Commonwealth, 463 S.W.2d 312 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971). “The conviction was obtained under KRS 218.020, which prohibits the unlawful sale of narcotic drugs.”
Edwards v. Commonwealth, 489 S.W.2d 23 (Ky. Ct. App. 1972). “Appellant undertakes by this appeal to upset his conviction on a charge that he illegally sold, dispensed or administered a narcotic drug (heroin) in violation of KRS 218.020, under which he was sentenced to serve 20 years in the state penitentiary and adjudged to pay a fine of…”
Rupard v. Commonwealth, 475 S.W.2d 473 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971). “The first assignment of error relates to the claim by the appellants that it was improper for the trial court to permit the introduction into evidence of the five bags of marijuana and the substantial quantity of unprocessed marijuana which was found in the house.”
Nichols v. Commonwealth, 408 S.W.2d 189 (Ky. Ct. App. 1966). “KRS 218.020; 218.210(2). Our view of the case requires discussion of only one of the grounds advanced for reversal— whether the contraband narcotic was obtained as the result of an illegal search.”
Long v. Hamilton, 467 S.W.2d 139 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971). “KRS 218.020. The penalties prescribed by law upon conviction of unlawful possession are confinement in the penitentiary for not less than two nor more than ten years and a fine not exceeding $20,000.”
Brock v. Commonwealth, 479 S.W.2d 644 (Ky. Ct. App. 1972). “The appellant was tried November 23, 1970, under an indictment containing two counts of possessing cocaine and two counts charging him with the sale of cocaine in violation of KRS 218.020. On May 5, 1971, the appellant filed a motion under RCr 11.”
Bays v. Commonwealth, 486 S.W.2d 706 (Ky. Ct. App. 1972). “Steven Allen Bays was convicted of possession of Demerol, a dangerous drug, in violation of KRS 218.020. The Demerol was taken from him in a search of his person by a police officer.”
Berkshire v. Commonwealth, 471 S.W.2d 695 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 2× “Roger Berkshire was convicted of the unlawful possession of marijuana as denounced by KRS 218.020 prior to the amendments affecting the offense as enacted by the 1970 General Assembly.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 218.020(3) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 411 S.W.3d 741 (Ky. 2013). “The record does not indicate any argument up to this point in the proceedings by Hamilton and Cole regarding the constitutionality of KRS 218.020(3). At the evidentiary hearing, the parties stipulated that the Cabinet, in altering the classification of buprenorphine, relied upon…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.