Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 509
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 509.050 (2026)

Exemption

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

A person may not be convicted of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, or kidnapping when his criminal purpose is the commission of an offense defined outside this chapter and his interference with the victim's liberty occurs immediately with and incidental to the commission of that offense, unless the interference exceeds that which is ordinarily incident to commission of the offense which is the objective of his criminal purpose. The exemption provided by this section is not applicable to a charge of kidnapping that arises from an interference with another's liberty that occurs incidental to the commission of a criminal escape. Effective: January 1, 1975 History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 77, effective January 1, 1975.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Calloway v. Commonwealth, 550 S.W.2d 501 (Ky. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Calloway v. Commonwealth, 550 S.W.2d 501 (Ky. 1977). · cites it 21× “The principal assertion of error is the failure of the trial court to submit an instruction to the jury on the exemption to the kidnapping statute, KRS 509.050. Calloway argues that his only defense to the crime charged was that his actions fell within the exemption statute.”
Hatfield v. Commonwealth, 250 S.W.3d 590 (Ky. 2008). · cites it 9× “Appellant should have been granted a directed verdict as to the kidnapping charge by virtue of his qualifying for the Kidnapping Exemption statute KRS 509.050. Appellant contends that he should have been granted a directed verdict as to the kidnapping charge because of the…”
Mitchell v. Commonwealth, 908 S.W.2d 100 (Ky. 1995). · cites it 10× “Finally, Appellant asserts that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss the one kidnapping charge pursuant to the exemption statute KRS 509.050. KRS 509.050 provides: A person may not be convicted of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, unlawful imprisonment in the…”
Moore v. Commonwealth, 634 S.W.2d 426 (Ky. 1982). · cites it 8× “DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR BY FAILING TO DIRECT A VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL ON THE CHARGE OF KIDNAPPING IN VIEW OF THE KENTUCKY KIDNAPPING EXEMPTION STATUTE? KRS 509.050, the so-called kidnapping exemption statute, is as follows: A person may not be convicted of unlawful imprisonment in…”
Stinnett v. Commonwealth, 364 S.W.3d 70 (Ky. 2011). · cites it 11× “1 Appellant raises the following arguments: (1) that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss the kidnapping charge pursuant to KRS 509.050, the kidnapping exemption statute; (2) that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on the crime of intentional murder; (3) that…”
Harris v. Commonwealth, 793 S.W.2d 802 (Ky. 1990). · cites it 6× “Harris also argues that the kidnapping exemption statute, KRS 509.050, should have been applied to preclude the Commonwealth from proceeding on the kidnap charge.”
Griffin v. Commonwealth, 576 S.W.2d 514 (Ky. 1978). · cites it 5× “040) and the exemption provision of KRS 509.050. KRS 509.040, the kidnapping statue provides: “(1) A person is guilty of kidnapping when he unlawfully restrains another person and when his intent is: (a) To hold him for ransom or reward; or (b) To accomplish or to advance the…”
Dunlap v. Commonwealth, 435 S.W.3d 537 (Ky. 2013). · cites it 2× “However, in certain qualified instances within KRS 509.050, kidnapping charges will become inapplicable.”
Simpson v. Commonwealth, 889 S.W.2d 781 (Ky. 1994). · cites it 3× “Appellant first contends that he was entitled to dismissal of the kidnapping charge, pursuant to KRS 509.050. That statute exempts a person from being convicted of kidnapping when his criminal purpose of such kidnapping is for the commission of another offense outside of K.”
Mitchell v. Commonwealth, 423 S.W.3d 152 (Ky. 2014). · cites it 4× “Kidnapping Exemption Appellant next argues that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss both counts of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree pursuant to the kidnapping exemption statute, KRS 509.050, which in certain circumstances precludes an unlawful imprisonment…”
Murphy v. Commonwealth, 50 S.W.3d 173 (Ky. 2001). · cites it 2× “The exemption, which is found in KRS 509.050, provides, in relevant part: A person may not be convicted of unlawful imprisonment in the first-degree, unlawful imprisonment in the second-degree, or kidnapping when his criminal purpose is the commission of an offense defined…”
Wood v. Commonwealth, 178 S.W.3d 500 (Ky. 2005). · cites it 2× “Kidnapping Exemption Wood next argues that the kidnapping exemption found at KRS 509.050 precludes his conviction for the capital kidnapping of Ms.”
Show all 46 citing cases →
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.