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

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 29A.310 (2026)

Admonition to jury upon separation -- View of property or place

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) If the jury is permitted to separate, either during the trial or after the case is submitted to them, they shall be admonished by the court that it is their duty not to converse with, nor allow themselves to be addressed by, any other person on any subject of the trial; and that, during the trial, it is their duty not to form or express an opinion thereon, until the case is finally submitted to them.

(2) No officer, party, or witness to an action pending, or his attorney or attorneys shall, without leave of the court, converse with the jury or any member thereof upon any subject after they have been sworn.

(3) When necessary the judge may authorize the jury to view the real property which is the subject of the litigation, or the place in which any material fact occurred, or the place in which the offense is charged to have been committed. Effective: January 2, 1978 History: Created 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 22, sec. 42, effective January 2, 1978.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · leading case: Talbott v. Commonwealth, 968 S.W.2d 76 (Ky. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Talbott v. Commonwealth, 968 S.W.2d 76 (Ky. 1998). · cites it 5× “310(2) Appellant asserts it was reversible error for the trial judge to deny her motion for a mistrial after she discovered that Sheriff Jeff Staples, a witness for the Commonwealth, had engaged in conversations with three jurors during trial recesses. KRS 29A.”
Major v. Commonwealth, 177 S.W.3d 700 (Ky. 2006). · cites it 4× “Kentucky Law provides that "no officer, party, or witness to an action pending, or his attorney, or attorneys shall, without leave of court, converse with the jury or any member thereof upon any subject after they have been sworn.”
Roy Edward Tucker v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 530 S.W.3d 413 (Ky. 2017). · cites it 3× “In Kentucky these fundamental rights receive protection under both KRS 29A.310 and Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 9.”
Oro-Jimenez v. Commonwealth, 412 S.W.3d 174 (Ky. 2013). · cites it 3× “The trial court found, based upon the minimal nature of the contact, the timing of the contact after the guilt-phase verdict had been completed, and the juror’s assertion that the conversation played no role in the jury’s deliberations, that the incident did not justify the…”
Graham v. Commonwealth, 319 S.W.3d 331 (Ky. 2010). · cites it 3× “KRS § 29A.310(1). However, even if the jurors violated that admonishment in this instance, their discussion was harmless.”
Deemer v. Finger, 817 S.W.2d 435 (Ky. 1991). · cites it 2× “…"[N]ot to converse with, nor allow themselves to be addressed by, any other person on any subject of the trial . . ." KRS 29A.310(1).”
Sholler v. Commonwealth, 969 S.W.2d 706 (Ky. 1998). “Thus, Appellant’s argument that the lights in the tavern were not as bright as testified to by the eyewitnesses was pure speculation and could not have been proven by a view.”
Cape Publications, Inc. v. Braden, 39 S.W.3d 823 (Ky. 2001). “70; KRS 29A.310(1). Traditionally, this Court has a strong preference for filtering all communications through a court officer so as to obtain leave of court.”
Doyle ex rel. Doyle v. Marymount Hosp., Inc., 762 S.W.2d 813 (Ky. Ct. App. 1988). “KRS 29A.310(1) is a codification of the duties traditionally required of jurors in this jurisdiction to insure litigants of a fair trial as follows: 29A.”
Roger D. Burdette v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. 2023). · cites it 6× “Burdette now argues that KRS 29A.310 does not apply to this case, since vehicles are not real property, see Property, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed.”
Lonnie Conyers v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. 2017). · cites it 5× “In Kentucky these fundamental rights receive protection under both KRS 29A.310 and Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 9.”
Joseph Hardy v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. 2017). · cites it 5× “In Kentucky these fundamental rights receive protection under both KRS 29A.310 and Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 9.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 29A.310(1) — 7 cases
Graham v. Commonwealth, 319 S.W.3d 331 (Ky. 2010). “KRS § 29A.310(1). However, even if the jurors violated that admonishment in this instance, their discussion was harmless.”
Deemer v. Finger, 817 S.W.2d 435 (Ky. 1991). “…"[N]ot to converse with, nor allow themselves to be addressed by, any other person on any subject of the trial . . ." KRS 29A.310(1).”
Cape Publications, Inc. v. Braden, 39 S.W.3d 823 (Ky. 2001). “70; KRS 29A.310(1). Traditionally, this Court has a strong preference for filtering all communications through a court officer so as to obtain leave of court.”
Doyle ex rel. Doyle v. Marymount Hosp., Inc., 762 S.W.2d 813 (Ky. Ct. App. 1988). “KRS 29A.310(1) is a codification of the duties traditionally required of jurors in this jurisdiction to insure litigants of a fair trial as follows: 29A.”
Lonnie Conyers v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. 2017). “In Kentucky these fundamental rights receive protection under both KRS 29A.310 and Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 9.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 29A.310(2) — 11 cases
Talbott v. Commonwealth, 968 S.W.2d 76 (Ky. 1998). “310(2) Appellant asserts it was reversible error for the trial judge to deny her motion for a mistrial after she discovered that Sheriff Jeff Staples, a witness for the Commonwealth, had engaged in conversations with three jurors during trial recesses. KRS 29A.”
Major v. Commonwealth, 177 S.W.3d 700 (Ky. 2006). “Kentucky Law provides that "no officer, party, or witness to an action pending, or his attorney, or attorneys shall, without leave of court, converse with the jury or any member thereof upon any subject after they have been sworn.”
Oro-Jimenez v. Commonwealth, 412 S.W.3d 174 (Ky. 2013). “The trial court found, based upon the minimal nature of the contact, the timing of the contact after the guilt-phase verdict had been completed, and the juror’s assertion that the conversation played no role in the jury’s deliberations, that the incident did not justify the…”
Roy Edward Tucker v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 530 S.W.3d 413 (Ky. 2017). “In Kentucky these fundamental rights receive protection under both KRS 29A.310 and Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 9.”
Graham v. Commonwealth, 319 S.W.3d 331 (Ky. 2010). “KRS § 29A.310(1). However, even if the jurors violated that admonishment in this instance, their discussion was harmless.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 29A.310(3) — 2 cases
Sholler v. Commonwealth, 969 S.W.2d 706 (Ky. 1998). “Thus, Appellant’s argument that the lights in the tavern were not as bright as testified to by the eyewitnesses was pure speculation and could not have been proven by a view.”
Roger D. Burdette v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. 2023). “Burdette now argues that KRS 29A.310 does not apply to this case, since vehicles are not real property, see Property, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed.”
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.