Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 508
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 508.060 (2026)

Wanton endangerment in the first degree

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

(1) A person is guilty of wanton endangerment in the first degree when, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, he or she wantonly engages in conduct which creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person. (2) Wanton endangerment in the first degree is a Class D felony, unless the person discharges a firearm in the commission of the offense, in which case it is a Class C felony. Effective: July 15, 2024 History: Amended 2024 Ky. Acts ch. 174, sec. 40, effective July 15, 2024. -- Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 70, effective January 1, 1975.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 128 cases (53 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Swan v. Commonwealth, 384 S.W.3d 77 (Ky. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Swan v. Commonwealth, 384 S.W.3d 77 (Ky. 2012). · cites it 5× “060, which makes it a crime “under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, [to] wantonly engage[] in conduct which creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person.” KRS 508.060(1).”
Bell v. Commonwealth, 122 S.W.3d 490 (Ky. 2003). · cites it 8× “095(1)(a)(4) has, in the past, been prosecuted under the wanton endangerment statutes, [29] and we therefore recognize that *497 precedent interpreting "substantial risks" within the context of KRS 508.060 and KRS 508.070 is relevant to our interpretation of KRS 520.”
Ramsey v. Commonwealth, 157 S.W.3d 194 (Ky. 2005). · cites it 8× “This appeal requires us to examine whether the jury, based on the evidence presented in the case, could reasonably believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant is guilty of first-degree wanton endangerment, as defined by KRS § 508.060. "A person is guilty of wanton…”
Brown v. Commonwealth, 174 S.W.3d 421 (Ky. 2005). · cites it 4× “020(1)(b), and two counts of wanton endangerment in the first degree, KRS 508.060. He received sentences of twenty years imprisonment for each murder conviction *424 and one year imprisonment for each wanton endangerment conviction, all to run concurrently for a total of twenty…”
Hall v. Commonwealth, 468 S.W.3d 814 (Ky. 2015). · cites it 3× “” KRS 508.060(1). “Firing a weapon in the immediate vicinity of others is the prototype of first degree wanton endangerment.”
Commonwealth v. Clemons, 734 S.W.2d 459 (Ky. 1987). · cites it 9× “Appellee, John Clemons, was convicted of two counts of wanton endangerment in the first degree (KRS 508.060, a Class D Felony) for pointing a loaded firearm at two Kentucky State Police officers who were in the performance of their official *460 duties.”
Hennemeyer v. Commonwealth, 580 S.W.2d 211 (Ky. 1979). · cites it 5× “On December 17, 1976, movant, Christopher David Hennemeyer, was indicted by the Grand Jury of Pike County, Kentucky, for the following offenses: ten counts of wanton endangerment in the first degree (KRS 508.060) and one count of theft and unlawful taking of a 1970 Ford…”
Hancock v. Commonwealth, 998 S.W.2d 496 (Ky. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 13× “The issues which Hancock preserved for appellate review present questions of first impression concerning the application of KRS 508.060 to an individual’s conduct resulting in exposing another person to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).”
Hunt v. Commonwealth, 304 S.W.3d 15 (Ky. 2010). · cites it 2× “060 provides that “[a] person is guilty of wanton endangerment in the first degree when, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, he wantonly engages in conduct which creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to…”
Hardin v. Commonwealth, 573 S.W.2d 657 (Ky. 1978). · cites it 4× “The movant was indicted by the Oldham County Grand Jury for wanton endangerment in the first degree (KRS 508.060) and for being a persistent felony offender (KRS 532.”
Paulley v. Commonwealth, 323 S.W.3d 715 (Ky. 2010). · cites it 2× “After analyzing precedent and the wanton endangerment statute, KRS 508.060, the Court of Appeals concluded "the shootings which endangered seven persons in total could be charged as seven separate offenses of wanton endangerment.”
Gilbert v. Commonwealth, 637 S.W.2d 632 (Ky. 1982). · cites it 3× “010), first-degree wanton endangerment (KRS 508.060) and first-degree robbery (KRS 515.”
Show all 128 citing cases →
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 508.060(1) — 42 cases
Hall v. Commonwealth, 468 S.W.3d 814 (Ky. 2015). “” KRS 508.060(1). “Firing a weapon in the immediate vicinity of others is the prototype of first degree wanton endangerment.”
Bell v. Commonwealth, 122 S.W.3d 490 (Ky. 2003). “095(1)(a)(4) has, in the past, been prosecuted under the wanton endangerment statutes, [29] and we therefore recognize that *497 precedent interpreting "substantial risks" within the context of KRS 508.060 and KRS 508.070 is relevant to our interpretation of KRS 520.”
Ramsey v. Commonwealth, 157 S.W.3d 194 (Ky. 2005). “This appeal requires us to examine whether the jury, based on the evidence presented in the case, could reasonably believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant is guilty of first-degree wanton endangerment, as defined by KRS § 508.060. "A person is guilty of wanton…”
Brown v. Commonwealth, 174 S.W.3d 421 (Ky. 2005). “020(1)(b), and two counts of wanton endangerment in the first degree, KRS 508.060. He received sentences of twenty years imprisonment for each murder conviction *424 and one year imprisonment for each wanton endangerment conviction, all to run concurrently for a total of twenty…”
Brown v. Commonwealth, 297 S.W.3d 557 (Ky. 2009).
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 508.060(2) — 4 cases
Manns v. Commonwealth, 80 S.W.3d 439 (Ky. 2002).
Brady Lee Ray v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. 2020).
Brady Lee Ray v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. 2020).
Mark Shannon v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. 2026).
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.