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

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 29.135 (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Repealed, 1978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: Drawing of jury list from drum -- Number drawn -- Procedure -- Selection of grand and petit jurors. History: Repealed 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 14, sec. 491, effective January 2, 1978. -- Amended 1968 Ky. Acts ch. 152, sec. 17. -- Amended 1966 Ky. Acts ch. 182, sec. 1. -- Created 1954 Ky. Acts ch. 7, sec. 14.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1962–1971 · leading case: Gill v. Commonwealth, 374 S.W.2d 848 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gill v. Commonwealth, 374 S.W.2d 848 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964). · cites it 2× “It is contended the circuit judge failed to comply with the provisions of KRS 29.135 (1) ; the relevant portion of this subsection it is claimed was ignored reads: “At each term of circuit courts having terms, the judge shall, in open court, draw from the drum a sufficient…”
Juett v. Calhoun, 405 S.W.2d 946 (Ky. Ct. App. 1966). “” The motion sought “to set aside the jury panel” for this alleged violation of KRS 29.135. There was no response or counter-affidavit to the verified motion, but an order merely recites that the motion came on to be heard, “ * * * and the Court being advised it is ordered and…”
Price v. Commonwealth, 366 S.W.2d 725 (Ky. Ct. App. 1962). “When we return to the facts of the instant case and the statute (KRS 29.135), we find a substantial deviation.”
Hudson v. Commonwealth, 449 S.W.2d 218 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969). “115 through KRS 29.135. These sections of the statutes specify the procedure to be followed in selecting and impaneling a jury.”
Chaney v. Commonwealth, 451 S.W.2d 671 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “In so concluding, we construe the trial judge’s account as meaning that he called three bystanders at the current term which was the “next” term after the names of prospective jurors were drawn from the drum at the previous term of court under KRS 29.135. The prosecution case…”
Ratliff v. Stephenson, 409 S.W.2d 805 (Ky. Ct. App. 1966). · cites it 7× “We need not inquire whether we have a constitutional question relating to the separation • of governmental powers.”
Helton v. Commonwealth, 476 S.W.2d 621 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971). “30; KRS 29.135(5). A jury was not obtained from the group, so an additional twenty names were drawn from the wheel.”
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 29.135(1): 3 cases
Gill v. Commonwealth, 374 S.W.2d 848 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964). “It is contended the circuit judge failed to comply with the provisions of KRS 29.135 (1) ; the relevant portion of this subsection it is claimed was ignored reads: “At each term of circuit courts having terms, the judge shall, in open court, draw from the drum a sufficient…”
Chaney v. Commonwealth, 451 S.W.2d 671 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970). “In so concluding, we construe the trial judge’s account as meaning that he called three bystanders at the current term which was the “next” term after the names of prospective jurors were drawn from the drum at the previous term of court under KRS 29.135. The prosecution case…”
Ratliff v. Stephenson, 409 S.W.2d 805 (Ky. Ct. App. 1966). “We need not inquire whether we have a constitutional question relating to the separation • of governmental powers.”
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 29.135(10): 1 case
Ratliff v. Stephenson, 409 S.W.2d 805 (Ky. Ct. App. 1966). “We need not inquire whether we have a constitutional question relating to the separation • of governmental powers.”
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 29.135(2): 1 case
Ratliff v. Stephenson, 409 S.W.2d 805 (Ky. Ct. App. 1966). “We need not inquire whether we have a constitutional question relating to the separation • of governmental powers.”
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 29.135(5): 2 cases
Ratliff v. Stephenson, 409 S.W.2d 805 (Ky. Ct. App. 1966). “We need not inquire whether we have a constitutional question relating to the separation • of governmental powers.”
Helton v. Commonwealth, 476 S.W.2d 621 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971). “30; KRS 29.135(5). A jury was not obtained from the group, so an additional twenty names were drawn from the wheel.”
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.