Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 503.120 (2026)

Justification -- General provisions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) When the defendant believes that the use of force upon or toward the person of another is necessary for any of the purposes for which such belief would establish a justification under KRS 503.050 to 503.110 but the defendant is wanton or reckless in believing the use of any force, or the degree of force used, to be necessary or in acquiring or failing to acquire any knowledge or belief which is material to the justifiability of his use of force, the justification afforded by those sections is unavailable in a prosecution for an offense for which wantonness or recklessness, as the case may be, suffices to establish culpability. (2) When the defendant is justified under KRS 503.050 to 503.110 in using force upon or toward the person of another, but he wantonly or recklessly injures or creates a risk of injury to innocent persons, the justification afforded by those sections is unavailable in a prosecution for an offense involving wantonness or recklessness toward innocent persons. Effective: January 1, 1975 History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 37, effective January 1, 1975.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 53 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Hager, 41 S.W.3d 828 (Ky. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Hager, 41 S.W.3d 828 (Ky. 2001). · cites it 32× “[5] The parties in this case acknowledge that the KRS 503.120 issue is intertwined with the question framed for certification: "The Commonwealth also requests that the Court set forth how the erroneous belief qualification should be applied to the crime of reckless homicide.”

Elliott v. Commonwealth, 976 S.W.2d 416 (Ky. 1998). · cites it 12× “However, KRS 503.120 describes two circumstances when an assault or a homicide committed under an actual belief in the need for self-protection 2 will not result in complete exoneration.”

Shannon v. Commonwealth, 767 S.W.2d 548 (Ky. 1988). · cites it 12× “" Thus, to cover killings culpable in nature because the offender wantonly or recklessly acted in self-defense, the Penal Code classified these offenders for penalty with Manslaughter II or Reckless Homicide.”

McGinnis v. Commonwealth, 875 S.W.2d 518 (Ky. 1994). · cites it 12× “020(1); (2) on the other hand, if this claim of self-defense is believed, but the jury further believes the defendant wantonly or recklessly perceived a need for self-protection or deadly force where none existed, the level of culpability needed for wanton murder is missing and…”

Christopher Gribbins v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 483 S.W.3d 370 (Ky. 2016). · cites it 4× “Gribbins begins by arguing that the trial court’s instructions failed to accurately address, the elements of self-protection as required under- KRS 503.120 and our prior decisions in Elliott v.”

Hoskins v. Maricle, 150 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2004). · cites it 2× “KRS 503.120(1); Elliott v. Commonwealth, Ky.”

Baker v. Commonwealth, 677 S.W.2d 876 (Ky. 1984). · cites it 6× “An accused is entitled to an instruction on reckless homicide if he offers evidence sufficient to indicate a subjective belief, however unreasonable, that self-defense was necessary.”

Saylor v. Commonwealth, 144 S.W.3d 812 (Ky. 2004). · cites it 4× “020(3); KRS 503.120(1). Both theories require that the risk (that death would result or that the belief in the need to act in self-protection was mistakenly held) was of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care that a…”

Commonwealth v. Rose, 725 S.W.2d 588 (Ky. 1987). · cites it 4× “But KRS 503.120(1) provides that when "such belief .”

Blake v. Commonwealth, 607 S.W.2d 422 (Ky. 1980). · cites it 6× “The Commentary (1974) to KRS 503.120 supports Blake's contention and reads in part as follows: ".”

Commonwealth v. Higgs, 59 S.W.3d 886 (Ky. 2001). · cites it 4× “Appellee did not preserve this issue for review; nor did he object to the fact that paragraph (b) of the mistaken belief qualification in the self-protection instruction incorrectly predicated his guilt of manslaughter in the second degree or reckless homicide partially upon the…”

Springer v. Commonwealth, 998 S.W.2d 439 (Ky. 1999). · cites it 2× “If sufficient competent evidence is introduced to create a jury issue that a defendant was a victim of domestic violence and abuse and killed or assaulted his or her abuser under a belief that there was an "impending danger" of being subjected to unlawful physical force at the…”

Show all 53 citing cases →

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 503.120(1) — 38 cases

Commonwealth v. Hager, 41 S.W.3d 828 (Ky. 2001). “[5] The parties in this case acknowledge that the KRS 503.120 issue is intertwined with the question framed for certification: "The Commonwealth also requests that the Court set forth how the erroneous belief qualification should be applied to the crime of reckless homicide.”

Elliott v. Commonwealth, 976 S.W.2d 416 (Ky. 1998). “However, KRS 503.120 describes two circumstances when an assault or a homicide committed under an actual belief in the need for self-protection 2 will not result in complete exoneration.”

Hoskins v. Maricle, 150 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2004). “KRS 503.120(1); Elliott v. Commonwealth, Ky.”

Saylor v. Commonwealth, 144 S.W.3d 812 (Ky. 2004). “020(3); KRS 503.120(1). Both theories require that the risk (that death would result or that the belief in the need to act in self-protection was mistakenly held) was of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care that a…”

Commonwealth v. Rose, 725 S.W.2d 588 (Ky. 1987). “But KRS 503.120(1) provides that when "such belief .”

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 503.120(2) — 6 cases

Pollini v. Commonwealth, 172 S.W.3d 418 (Ky. 2005).

Hayes v. Commonwealth, 870 S.W.2d 786 (Ky. 1994).

Phillips v. Commonwealth, 17 S.W.3d 870 (Ky. 2000).

Kohlheim v. Commonwealth, 618 S.W.2d 591 (Ky. Ct. App. 1981).

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.