Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 242
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 242.390 (2026)

Repealed, 1992

✓ 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: Reputation of defendant admissible in evidence. History: Repealed 1990 Ky. Acts ch. 88, secs. 92 and 93, effective July 1, 1992. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 2554c-38. Note: Repeal of this section became effective July 1, 1992, in compliance with 1992 Ky. Acts ch. 324, secs. 30 and 33.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1946–1974 · leading case: Brown v. Commonwealth, 378 S.W.2d 608 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brown v. Commonwealth, 378 S.W.2d 608 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964). “However, two prior convictions of Brown in Bell County, on charges similar to the one for which he is now under indictment, were proven in support of the allegation in the indictment that he was a third offender; and, in addition, as provided by KRS 242.”
Stratton v. Commonwealth, 263 S.W.2d 99 (Ky. Ct. App. 1953). “It is contended that KRS 242.390, which permits, in actions for violation of local option laws, the introduction of evidence of the general reputation of the defendant for bootlegging or being engaged in transporting, selling, or-keeping alcoholic beverages for the purpose of…”
De Attley v. Commonwealth, 220 S.W.2d 106 (Ky. Ct. App. 1949). “The only testimony introduced by the Commonwealth was that this small amount of whiskey and the empty beer bottles and cans were found when the search was made, followed by some eight or ten witnesses who testified that appellants’ reputations for trafficking in intoxicating…”
Adkins v. Commonwealth, 230 S.W.2d 453 (Ky. Ct. App. 1950). “She further stated that the house in question was owned by her, but was occupied by Calvin Sloan and his wife at the time mentioned in the evidence, as she had bought it as a home for her daughter.”
Flynn v. Commonwealth, 235 S.W.2d 1004 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951). “Each witness hazards his own guess as to the ingredients which made up contents of the reservoir of the stove, but no witness clearly and positively identifies any liquor which might conceivably be on hand for the purpose of sale. We believe that the proof adduced is not of the…”
Napier v. Commonwealth, 264 S.W.2d 872 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954). “The Commonwealth has not positively identified any liquor found on the1 premises. Ethyl alcohol is not an exclusive property of liquor but is an element of many other products sold commercially throughout the country for admittedly legal' purposes and might very well be found in…”
Hicks v. Commonwealth, 224 S.W.2d 916 (Ky. Ct. App. 1949). “Appellant did not testify or offer any proof, and under tbe proof the court was correct in overruling appellant’s motion for a directed verdict.”
Stephens v. Commonwealth, 196 S.W.2d 968 (Ky. Ct. App. 1946). “KRS 242.390, which is part of the Local Option Law, provides: “In any action for violation of this chapter, the general reputation of the defendant for bootlegging or being engaged in selling, or trading in, alcoholic beverages, or keeping or transporting them for- sale, shall…”
Nolan v. Commonwealth, 332 S.W.2d 283 (Ky. Ct. App. 1960). “2d 106, 107 , and cases cited therein that although proof of defendant’s bad reputation is admissible as substantive evidence in cases of this character (KRS 242.390) it alone is insufficient to sustain a conviction.”
Grace v. Commonwealth ex rel. Grigsby, 507 S.W.2d 170 (Ky. Ct. App. 1974). “KRS 242.390 provides that in any action for violation of Chapter 242 the general reputation of the defendant for being engaged in selling alcoholic beverages shall be .”
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.