Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 29
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 29.025 (2026)

Repealed, 1978

✓ 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: Qualifications of jurors. History: Repealed 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 14, sec. 491, effective January 2, 1978. -- Amended 1970 Ky. Acts ch. 20, sec. 1. -- Created 1954 Ky. Acts ch. 7, sec. 3, effective March 9, 1954.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1964–1983 · leading case: Carter v. Jury Comm'n of Greene Cty., 396 U.S. 320 (1970).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carter v. Jury Comm'n of Greene Cty., 396 U.S. 320 (1970). · cites it 2× “§ 43-102 (1964); Ky. Rev. Stat. § 29.025 (1962) ("temperate, discreet, and of good demeanor"); Me.”
Bartley v. Loyall, 648 S.W.2d 873 (Ky. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “The Johnson case held that an objection to the qualifications of jurors may not be made after the jury is sworn to try the case, but the result reached in that case was predicated upon the former KRS 29.025(2) (repealed 1976). In the Crawford case, which involved an irregularity…”
Pennington v. Commonwealth, 455 S.W.2d 530 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “This being a disqualification under KRS 29.025, the trial court, over objection by counsel for the defense, excused Mrs.”
Rice v. Commonwealth, 387 S.W.2d 4 (Ky. Ct. App. 1965). “On the other hand, they meet the test as to the basic qualifications laid down in KRS 29.025(1). See also KRS 29.020(2). In Lee v.”
Lanning v. Brown, 377 S.W.2d 590 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964). “From a technical standpoint, even if it should be conceded that the statement of the trial court did in fact create in the minds of the jurors an attitude of irresponsibility toward their oath, it was a matter going to their fitness to serve, hence required to be raised by…”
Howell v. Commonwealth, 489 S.W.2d 21 (Ky. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 2× “Furthermore, although Howell’s counsel stated in an affidavit that all of the prospective jurors in the case were asked on voir dire whether any of them had been convicted of a felony and not pardoned, the Commonwealth’s attorney and the County attorney each responded by…”
Johnson v. Commonwealth, 391 S.W.2d 365 (Ky. Ct. App. 1965). “KRS 29.025 (2) specifically provides: “The fact that a person not qualified served on a grand or petit jury shall not be cause for setting the indictment or verdict aside, nor shall exception be taken to any juror for lack of qualification after the jury has been sworn.”
Phelps v. Commonwealth, 435 S.W.2d 86 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968). “” This court has made it abundantly clear that trials must be conducted before fair and impartial jurors (Gossett v.”
Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Cisneros, 657 S.W.2d 244 (Ky. Ct. App. 1983). “” The appellant comments that KRS 29.025(2), which stated that no exception should be taken to any juror for lack of qualification after the jury has been sworn, has been repealed.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 29.025(1) — 2 cases
Rice v. Commonwealth, 387 S.W.2d 4 (Ky. Ct. App. 1965). “On the other hand, they meet the test as to the basic qualifications laid down in KRS 29.025(1). See also KRS 29.020(2). In Lee v.”
Pennington v. Commonwealth, 455 S.W.2d 530 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970). “This being a disqualification under KRS 29.025, the trial court, over objection by counsel for the defense, excused Mrs.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 29.025(2) — 4 cases
Bartley v. Loyall, 648 S.W.2d 873 (Ky. Ct. App. 1982). “The Johnson case held that an objection to the qualifications of jurors may not be made after the jury is sworn to try the case, but the result reached in that case was predicated upon the former KRS 29.025(2) (repealed 1976). In the Crawford case, which involved an irregularity…”
Lanning v. Brown, 377 S.W.2d 590 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964). “From a technical standpoint, even if it should be conceded that the statement of the trial court did in fact create in the minds of the jurors an attitude of irresponsibility toward their oath, it was a matter going to their fitness to serve, hence required to be raised by…”
Phelps v. Commonwealth, 435 S.W.2d 86 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968). “” This court has made it abundantly clear that trials must be conducted before fair and impartial jurors (Gossett v.”
Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Cisneros, 657 S.W.2d 244 (Ky. Ct. App. 1983). “” The appellant comments that KRS 29.025(2), which stated that no exception should be taken to any juror for lack of qualification after the jury has been sworn, has been repealed.”
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.