Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 29.280 (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Repealed, 1978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: Supplying deficiency in petit jury -- Bystanders. History: Repealed 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 14, sec. 491, effective January 2, 1978. -- Amended 1962 Ky. Acts ch. 234, sec. 61. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 2247.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases, 1943–2010 · leading case: Hayes v. Commonwealth, 320 S.W.3d 93 (Ky. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hayes v. Commonwealth, 320 S.W.3d 93 (Ky. 2010). “30 provided in pertinent part: "At the time of selecting the petit juries from the list of names drawn from the drum for that purpose, if there fail to attend or be excused by the court for good cause, such a number as will not leave the number of jurors required, the judge…”

Tarrence v. Commonwealth, 265 S.W.2d 40 (Ky. Ct. App. 1953). “, now KRS 29.280, Which covers the selection of a special, venire whether it be drawing from the wheel or summoning bystanders.”

Tennessee Prods. & Chem. Corp. v. Miller, 282 S.W.2d 52 (Ky. Ct. App. 1955). · cites it 4× “The principal purpose of *54 KRS 29.280 is to dispense insofar as practicable with the use of the professional juror, and to that end the parties have the right to insist upon compliance with the statute.”

Conner v. Denney, 521 S.W.2d 514 (Ky. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 3× “On the day of trial the appellant moved the court to strike the three bystanders from the regular panel on the ground that the bystanders were not drawn from the drum as required by KRS 29.280. The trial judge sustained appellant’s motion in regard to juror Charlie Sterns, but…”

Galloway v. Commonwealth, 170 S.W.2d 59 (Ky. Ct. App. 1943). · cites it 2× “Furthermore, if objections were not waived, or if objections and exceptions had been properly made and taken at the time, we do not think it was error for the court to direct the sheriff to summon bystanders to fill out the panel.”

Brock v. Commonwealth, 430 S.W.2d 333 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 2× “During all of this time appellant repeatedly moved the court for a mistrial and objected to the procedures used in the selection of the jury.”

McGlothen v. Commonwealth, 219 S.W.2d 1003 (Ky. Ct. App. 1949). “It is finally argued by appellant that he was entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal (1) because he had the unlawful intent to convert the money to his own use when he obtained it from the cashier of the Finance Company and, therefore, was not guilty of embezzlement, and…”

Wooldridge v. Commonwealth, 459 S.W.2d 404 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970). “2d 333 (1968), we held that under KRS 29.280 and RCr 9.30 the proper procedure would have been to draw two.”

Thompson v. Commonwealth, 208 S.W.2d 512 (Ky. Ct. App. 1948). · cites it 2× “There is no merit in appellant’s contention that the jury was improperly impanelled when the court permitted some twelve or fifteen bystanders to be summoned to serve as jurors.”

Chaney v. Commonwealth, 451 S.W.2d 671 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 6× “This circumstance presents a seeming conflict between KRS 29.280 and RCr 9.30. The trial court wrote, in overruling Chaney’s motion for a new trial, that “ * * * when the regular jury was impaneled, that after the jurors had been examined, there were three vacancies or three…”

Bartley v. Commonwealth, 188 S.W.2d 102 (Ky. Ct. App. 1945). “When there are over three vacancies in the regular panel of petit jurors at the time of selecting a jury in a -civil case, it is the duty of the judge to draw double the number of names from the drum to fill the panel; but in a' criminal case if the panel shall be exhausted by…”

Bolen v. Commonwealth, 252 S.W.2d 423 (Ky. Ct. App. 1952). “It is insisted that the procedure prescribed by KRS 29.280 was violated. The court was justified in considering the regular panel exhausted although three members were absent when their names were called.”

Show all 14 citing cases →

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 29.280(1) — 4 cases

Tennessee Prods. & Chem. Corp. v. Miller, 282 S.W.2d 52 (Ky. Ct. App. 1955). “The principal purpose of *54 KRS 29.280 is to dispense insofar as practicable with the use of the professional juror, and to that end the parties have the right to insist upon compliance with the statute.”

Conner v. Denney, 521 S.W.2d 514 (Ky. Ct. App. 1975). “On the day of trial the appellant moved the court to strike the three bystanders from the regular panel on the ground that the bystanders were not drawn from the drum as required by KRS 29.280. The trial judge sustained appellant’s motion in regard to juror Charlie Sterns, but…”

Chaney v. Commonwealth, 451 S.W.2d 671 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970). “This circumstance presents a seeming conflict between KRS 29.280 and RCr 9.30. The trial court wrote, in overruling Chaney’s motion for a new trial, that “ * * * when the regular jury was impaneled, that after the jurors had been examined, there were three vacancies or three…”

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 29.280(3) — 3 cases

Thomas v. Commonwealth, 305 S.W.2d 319 (Ky. Ct. App. 1957).

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.