Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 421.210 (2026)

Repealed, 1992

✓ 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: Person not to testify in his own behalf -- Exceptions. History: Repealed 1992 Ky. Acts ch. 324, sec. 30, effective July 1, 1992. -- Amended 1990 Ky. Acts ch. 88, secs. 77 and 93. -- Amended 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 188, sec. 289, effective July 15, 1980; and ch. 312, sec. 2, effective July 15, 1980. -- Amended 1976 Ky. Acts ch. 358, sec. 1. -- Transferred 1952 Ky. Acts ch. 84, sec. 1, effective July 1, 1953 from C.C. sec. 606. -- C.C. sec. 606 amended 1940 Ky. Acts ch. 95, sec. 1. -- C.C. sec. 606 amended and reenacted 1932 Ky. Acts ch. 59, sec. 1. -- C.C. sec. 606, repealed, reenacted, and amended 1930 Ky. Acts ch. 21, sec. 1. -- C.C. sec. 606 amended and reenacted 1926 Ky. Acts ch. 29, sec. 1. -- C.C. sec. 606 amended 1912 Ky. Acts ch. 104, sec. 1. -- C.C. sec. 606, repealed and reenacted 1898 Ky. Acts ch. 1, secs. 1 to 9. Note: 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 396, sec. 143 would have amended this section effective July 1, 1982. However, 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 396 was repealed by 1982 Ky. Acts. ch. 141, sec. 146, also effective July 1, 1982.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 110 cases, 1954–2019 · leading case: Estes v. Commonwealth, 744 S.W.2d 421 (Ky. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Estes v. Commonwealth, 744 S.W.2d 421 (Ky. 1988). · cites it 27× “KRS 421.210 is a statutory codification of ancient common law principles.”

St. Clair v. Commonwealth, 174 S.W.3d 474 (Ky. 2005). · cites it 10× “Clair also argues that at the time of trial, KRS 421.210(1) was applicable and allowed one spouse to prohibit the other from testifying to communications made during their marriage, which are confidential in nature.”

Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980). · cites it 2× “Code § 38-1604 (1978); Ky. Rev. Stat. § 421.210 (Supp. 1978); La.”

Cosby v. Commonwealth, 776 S.W.2d 367 (Ky. 1989). · cites it 4× “Over objection Walls' wife was forced to testify on the theory that her testimony was competent as to his codefendant Cosby even though under KRS 421.210(1) she could not be compelled to testify against her husband.”

Bixler v. Commonwealth, 204 S.W.3d 616 (Ky. 2006). · cites it 6× “There is no indication that the defendant invoked his spousal testimony privilege, yet our predecessor court held: It is written in KRS 421.210 (old Cr. Code 606) that `neither (husband or wife) may be compelled to testify for or against the other.”

Dean v. Commonwealth, 777 S.W.2d 900 (Ky. 1989). · cites it 4× “She immediately asserted her testimonial privilege, as recognized in KRS 421.210(1). In Estes v. Commonwealth, Ky.”

Sanders v. Commonwealth, 89 S.W.3d 380 (Ky. 2002). · cites it 4× “KRS 421.210(1). Therefore, I would reverse and remand for a hearing.”

Dickerson v. Commonwealth, 174 S.W.3d 451 (Ky. 2005). · cites it 2× “The spouse of a party has a privilege to refuse to testify against the party as to events occurring after the date of their marriage.”

Stidham v. Clark, 74 S.W.3d 719 (Ky. 2002). · cites it 2× “050(2), which was enacted prior to the adoption of the KRE, created an exception to the husband-wife privilege, then compiled at KRS 421.210(1), in any proceeding involving a dependent, neglected or abused child.”

Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Serv. Ctr., Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476 (Ky. 1991). “A request was also made to produce certain documents in Kaelin’s possession concerning these matters and these entities.”

Elem Ray Fulcher v. John Motley, Warden, 444 F.3d 791 (6th Cir. 2006). “Kentucky's pre-1992 rules of evidence, including the marital privilege in Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 421.210 (1), see Slaven v.”

Sanborn v. Commonwealth, 892 S.W.2d 542 (Ky. 1995). · cites it 2× “2d 179 (1978), this Court stated that in order to invoke the minister-penitent privileges provided in KRS 421.210(4), the statement must be made to the minister in his professional capacity.”

Show all 110 citing cases →

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 421.210(1) — 23 cases

Estes v. Commonwealth, 744 S.W.2d 421 (Ky. 1988). “KRS 421.210 is a statutory codification of ancient common law principles.”

St. Clair v. Commonwealth, 174 S.W.3d 474 (Ky. 2005). “Clair also argues that at the time of trial, KRS 421.210(1) was applicable and allowed one spouse to prohibit the other from testifying to communications made during their marriage, which are confidential in nature.”

Cosby v. Commonwealth, 776 S.W.2d 367 (Ky. 1989). “Over objection Walls' wife was forced to testify on the theory that her testimony was competent as to his codefendant Cosby even though under KRS 421.210(1) she could not be compelled to testify against her husband.”

Dean v. Commonwealth, 777 S.W.2d 900 (Ky. 1989). “She immediately asserted her testimonial privilege, as recognized in KRS 421.210(1). In Estes v. Commonwealth, Ky.”

Sanders v. Commonwealth, 89 S.W.3d 380 (Ky. 2002). “KRS 421.210(1). Therefore, I would reverse and remand for a hearing.”

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 421.210(2) — 37 cases

France v. Kentucky Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 605 S.W.2d 773 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980).

L. K. M. v. Dep't for Human Resources, 621 S.W.2d 38 (Ky. Ct. App. 1981).

Howard v. Kingmont Oil Co., 729 S.W.2d 183 (Ky. Ct. App. 1987).

Teague v. Reid, 340 S.W.2d 235 (Ky. Ct. App. 1960).

Fortney v. Elliott's Adm'r, 273 S.W.2d 51 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954).

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 421.210(3) — 2 cases

Brown v. Smiley, 428 S.W.2d 217 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968).

Parrigin v. Sawyer, 457 S.W.2d 504 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970).

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 421.210(4) — 15 cases

Sanborn v. Commonwealth, 892 S.W.2d 542 (Ky. 1995). “2d 179 (1978), this Court stated that in order to invoke the minister-penitent privileges provided in KRS 421.210(4), the statement must be made to the minister in his professional capacity.”

Haney v. Yates, 40 S.W.3d 352 (Ky. 2000).

Harris v. Commonwealth, 688 S.W.2d 338 (Ky. Ct. App. 1984).

Branzburg v. Pound, 461 S.W.2d 345 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971).

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 421.210(8) — 1 case

White v. Crawford, 346 S.W.2d 308 (Ky. Ct. App. 1961).

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.