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

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 29.304 (2026)

Repealed, 1978

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Catchline at repeal: Manner of giving information on law or evidence after submission. History: Repealed 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 14, sec. 491, effective January 2, 1978. -- Transferred 1952 Ky. Acts ch. 84, sec. 1, effective July 1, 1953, from C.C. sec. 321.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1956–2011 · leading case: St. Luke Hosp., Inc. v. Straub, 354 S.W.3d 529 (Ky. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
St. Luke Hosp., Inc. v. Straub, 354 S.W.3d 529 (Ky. 2011). · cites it 2× “44 At the time the facts underlying the Thompson case occurred, KRS 29.304 controlled the manner of giving information on law or evidence after submission to the jury and permitted the court to comment on the law when the jury so requested.”
Humana, Inc. v. Fairchild, 603 S.W.2d 918 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “Secondly, appellant argues that as KRS 29.304 was repealed by the legislature effective January 2, 1978, the trial court had no authority to replay any portion of the testimony for the jury.”
Veach v. Commonwealth, 572 S.W.2d 417 (Ky. 1978). · cites it 2× “It is argued that KRS 29.304 is applicable to the present state of facts and prohibits the reopening of this case.”
Little v. Whitehouse, 384 S.W.2d 503 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964). · cites it 2× “The appellant does not suggest that the trial judge erred in refusing to let the jury have the deposition, hut she maintains that the judge should have told the jurors that portions of the deposition could be re-read to them in the courtroom.”
Kentucky & Indiana Terminal R.R. v. Mann Ex Rel. Mann, 312 S.W.2d 451 (Ky. Ct. App. 1958). · cites it 2× “Another contention is that the trial court violated KRS 29.304 in not giving the members of the jury certain information requested by them.”
Bellamy v. Pathak, 869 S.W.2d 45 (Ky. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “2d 943, 947 (1974), where it was noted that KRS 29.304, which mandated rereading to the jury, but which has since been repealed, was applicable by analogy to a dispute over testimony arising in the course of a closing argument so as to avoid misleading or confusing the jury;…”
Smith v. Wright, 512 S.W.2d 943 (Ky. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 2× “KRS 29.304. In the present case, the appellants were entitled to have the pertinent portion of Wright’s testimony read to them by the court reporter.”
Thompson v. Walker, 565 S.W.2d 172 (Ky. Ct. App. 1978). “KRS 29.304 permits the court to comment upon the law when the jury so requests.”
Holcomb v. City of Louisville, 600 S.W.2d 464 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977). “KRS 29.304 provides that a jury may have testimony read if there is a dispute as to what any witness has testified.”
People v. Leonardo, 687 P.2d 511 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984). “18(5)(g); Ky.Rev.Stat. § 29.304 (1971); La.Code Crim.”
Branch v. Whitaker, 294 S.W.2d 948 (Ky. Ct. App. 1956). “321 of the Civil Code of Practice (now KRS 29.304) also “expressly authorizes the •course pursued by the court”.”
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.