Kentucky Revised Statutes
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 435.200 (2026)
Repealed, effective January 1, 1975
✓ 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, flourishing or recklessly using deadly weapon. History: Repealed 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 336, effective January 1, 1975. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 1308.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases, 1949–2011 · leading case: Meece v. Commonwealth, 348 S.W.3d 627 (Ky. 2011).
Meece v. Commonwealth, 348 S.W.3d 627 (Ky. 2011). “We note, however, that the brandishing of the weapon in Arnett , “tended to show acts which constituted the commission of another offense by the accused (drawing or flourishing a deadly weapon, KRS 435.200) at a different time and place.”
McQueen v. Commonwealth, 339 S.W.3d 441 (Ky. 2011). “Arnett , a pre-rules case, dealt with "other crimes” evidence stemming from the appellant’s "flourishing” a gun at a third party (a violation of the now repealed KRS 435.200). 5 . McQueen gives mere lip service to the constitutional aspects of this argument and focuses on the…”
Tayloe v. Commonwealth, 335 S.W.2d 556 (Ky. Ct. App. 1960). “KRS 435.200. A fine of $50 was imposed upon each defendant.”
Davidson v. Commonwealth, 340 S.W.2d 243 (Ky. Ct. App. 1960). “The most that was shown, he asserts, was that he may have been guilty of discharging a deadly weapon carelessly and recklessly in violation of KRS 435.200. We cannot go along with this argument.”
Arnett v. Commonwealth, 470 S.W.2d 834 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971). “The testimony in question tended to show acts which constituted the commission of another offense by the accused (drawing or flourishing a deadly weapon, KRS 435.200) at a different time and place.”
Stevens v. Commonwealth, 462 S.W.2d 182 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970). “The appellant contends the instructions were erroneous in that they did not require a finding that the shooting was done with intent to kill and did not submit the issue of guilt of the lesser offense of shooting in sudden affray or sudden heat and passion under KRS 435.”
Profitt v. Commonwealth, 281 S.W.2d 898 (Ky. Ct. App. 1955). “He asked a reversal upon the sole ground that the court erred when it did not instruct under KRS 435.200 upon the misdemeanor of reckless use of a deadly weapon.”
Neely v. Commonwealth, 325 S.W.2d 79 (Ky. Ct. App. 1959). “KRS 435.200. The contention is based upon the fact it was not shown that the defendant knew the car was Hunt’s *81 and that he was “mad at Jim Hunt.”
Williams v. Commonwealth, 464 S.W.2d 806 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971). “KRS 435.200 (old § 1308) makes it a misdemeanor to draw a deadly weapon upon or at another person or to flourish or discharge a deadly weapon in certain places, including public highways.”
Thacker v. Commonwealth, 306 S.W.2d 292 (Ky. Ct. App. 1957). “There is no other direct testimony concerning the intention of Thacker at that moment, and counsel contends on this appeal that the court did not instruct on the whole law of the case because there was no instruction given on the lesser offense of reckless shooting into a motor…”
Morgan v. Commonwealth, 310 S.W.2d 281 (Ky. Ct. App. 1958). “See KRS 435.200. We believe this testimony of this witness, although it was objected to and the objection sustained, was admissible as material evidence in this case.”
Johnson v. Commonwealth, 230 S.W.2d 69 (Ky. Ct. App. 1950). “He testified that he did not know the *19 crowd was where it was or that his firing the shot was likely to hit anybody.”
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.