(1) Whenever the death penalty is imposed for a capital offense, and upon the judgment
becoming final in the Circuit Court, the sentence shall be reviewed on the record by
the Supreme Court. The circuit clerk, within ten (10) days after receiving the
transcript, shall transmit the entire record and transcript to the Supreme Court
together with a notice prepared by the clerk and a report prepared by the trial judge.
The notice shall set forth the title docket number of the case, the name of the
defendant and the name and address of his attorney, a narrative statement of the
judgment, the offense, and the punishment prescribed. The report shall be in the
form of a standard questionnaire prepared and supplied by the Supreme Court.
(2) The Supreme Court shall consider the punishment as well as any errors enumerated
by way of appeal.
(3) With regard to the sentence, the court shall determine:
(a) Whether the sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion,
prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor, and
(b) Whether the evidence supports the jury's or judge's finding of statutory
aggravating circumstances as enumerated in KRS 532.025(2), and
(c) Whether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty
imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant.
(4) Both the defendant and the Commonwealth shall have the right to submit briefs
within the time provided by the court, and to present oral argument to the court.
(5) The court shall include in its decision a reference to those similar cases which it
took into consideration. In addition to its authority regarding correction of errors,
the court, with regard to review of death sentences, shall be authorized to:
(a) Affirm the sentence of death; or
(b) Set the sentence aside and remand the case for resentencing by the trial judge
based on the record and argument of counsel. The records of those similar
cases referred to by the Supreme Court in its decision, and the extracts
prepared as hereinafter provided for, shall be provided to the resentencing
judge for his consideration.
(6) The Chief Justice shall assign to an administrative assistant who is an attorney the
following duties:
(a) To accumulate the records of all felony offenses in which the death penalty
was imposed after January 1, 1970, or such earlier date as the court may deem
appropriate.
(b) To provide the court with whatever extracted information it desires with
respect thereto, including but not limited to a synopsis or brief of the facts in
the record concerning the crime and the defendant.
(c) To compile such data as are deemed by the Chief Justice to be appropriate and
relevant to the statutory questions concerning the validity of the sentence.
(7) The administrative office of the courts shall provide such staff, services, and data as
are necessary to proper consideration of any matter relating to the imposition of the
death penalty in any case.
(8) The sentence review shall be in addition to the direct appeal, if taken, and the
review and appeal shall be consolidated. The court shall render its decision on legal
errors enumerated, the factual substantiation of the verdict, and the validity of the
sentence.
Effective: December 22, 1976
History: Created 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 15, sec. 6, effective December 22,
1976.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
84
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2023 · leading case:
Caudill v. Commonwealth, 120 S.W.3d 635 (Ky. 2003).
Caudill v. Commonwealth, 120 S.W.3d 635 (Ky. 2003).
· cites it 14× “Our review is governed solely by the provisions of KRS 532.075. 6. KRS 532.075(6) data. Failure to provide access to data compiled pursuant to KRS 532.”
St. Clair v. Commonwealth, 451 S.W.3d 597 (Ky. 2014).
· cites it 16× “The remaining claims are part of the direct appeal of his most recent death sentence, though some of them touch on our statutory review under KRS 532.075 and are discussed with that review.”
Chapman v. Commonwealth, 265 S.W.3d 156 (Ky. 2008).
· cites it 18× “Although Chapman's case is unique in that he actively sought to receive the death penalty as a punishment for his offenses, we have, nevertheless, engaged in the proportionality review required by KRS 532.075(3). Chapman brutally stabbed two innocent children to death, meaning…”
Bowling v. Commonwealth, 942 S.W.2d 293 (Ky. 1997).
· cites it 12× “*306 Pursuant to KRS 532.075 we have made a careful review of the record and have determined that the death sentence was not imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor.”
Tamme v. Commonwealth, 973 S.W.2d 13 (Ky. 1998).
· cites it 10× “§ 110(2)(b); KRS 532.075. He raises ninety-nine (99) issues on appeal.”
Hunt v. Commonwealth, 304 S.W.3d 15 (Ky. 2010).
· cites it 9× “” Pursuant to KRS 532.075 we have reviewed the record and have determined that the death sentence was not imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor.”
Meece v. Commonwealth, 348 S.W.3d 627 (Ky. 2011).
· cites it 8× “Moreover, “[t]here is no right to access this Court’s KRS 532.075 review data.” Id. (citing Ex parte Farley, 570 S.”
Woodall v. Commonwealth, 63 S.W.3d 104 (Ky. 2002).
· cites it 8× “We have considered whether the death sentence is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, as required by statute and have considered all circumstances of the crime committed here, and all of the evidence surrounding the defendant and his background.”
Dunlap v. Commonwealth, 435 S.W.3d 537 (Ky. 2013).
· cites it 10× “Where statutes do not interfere or threaten to interfere with the orderly administration of justice, what boots it to quibble over which branch of government has rightful authority? We respect the legislative branch, and in the name of comity and common sense are glad to accept…”
Stopher v. Commonwealth, 57 S.W.3d 787 (Ky. 2001).
· cites it 6× “Furthermore, the evidence supports the finding of an aggravating circumstance.”
Wheeler v. Commonwealth, 121 S.W.3d 173 (Ky. 2003).
· cites it 8× “26 and KRS 532.075(2). During the individual voir dire, the trial judge asked each juror several questions related to his or her religious beliefs.”
Sanders v. Commonwealth, 801 S.W.2d 665 (Ky. 1990).
· cites it 10× “Next, appellant submits that proportionality review pursuant to KRS 532.075 is unconstitutional for lack of articulated standards used by this Court.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.075(1) — 22 cases
Caudill v. Commonwealth, 120 S.W.3d 635 (Ky. 2003).
“Our review is governed solely by the provisions of KRS 532.075. 6. KRS 532.075(6) data. Failure to provide access to data compiled pursuant to KRS 532.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.075(2) — 23 cases
Meece v. Commonwealth, 348 S.W.3d 627 (Ky. 2011).
“Moreover, “[t]here is no right to access this Court’s KRS 532.075 review data.” Id. (citing Ex parte Farley, 570 S.”
Wheeler v. Commonwealth, 121 S.W.3d 173 (Ky. 2003).
“26 and KRS 532.075(2). During the individual voir dire, the trial judge asked each juror several questions related to his or her religious beliefs.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.075(2)(c) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.075(3) — 26 cases
Wheeler v. Commonwealth, 121 S.W.3d 173 (Ky. 2003).
“26 and KRS 532.075(2). During the individual voir dire, the trial judge asked each juror several questions related to his or her religious beliefs.”
Tamme v. Commonwealth, 973 S.W.2d 13 (Ky. 1998).
“§ 110(2)(b); KRS 532.075. He raises ninety-nine (99) issues on appeal.”
Chapman v. Commonwealth, 265 S.W.3d 156 (Ky. 2008).
“Although Chapman's case is unique in that he actively sought to receive the death penalty as a punishment for his offenses, we have, nevertheless, engaged in the proportionality review required by KRS 532.075(3). Chapman brutally stabbed two innocent children to death, meaning…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.075(3)(a) — 7 cases
Sanders v. Commonwealth, 801 S.W.2d 665 (Ky. 1990).
“Next, appellant submits that proportionality review pursuant to KRS 532.075 is unconstitutional for lack of articulated standards used by this Court.”
Meece v. Commonwealth, 348 S.W.3d 627 (Ky. 2011).
“Moreover, “[t]here is no right to access this Court’s KRS 532.075 review data.” Id. (citing Ex parte Farley, 570 S.”
Dunlap v. Commonwealth, 435 S.W.3d 537 (Ky. 2013).
“Where statutes do not interfere or threaten to interfere with the orderly administration of justice, what boots it to quibble over which branch of government has rightful authority? We respect the legislative branch, and in the name of comity and common sense are glad to accept…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.075(3)(b) — 2 cases
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.075(3)(c) — 15 cases
Sanders v. Commonwealth, 801 S.W.2d 665 (Ky. 1990).
“Next, appellant submits that proportionality review pursuant to KRS 532.075 is unconstitutional for lack of articulated standards used by this Court.”
Bowling v. Commonwealth, 942 S.W.2d 293 (Ky. 1997).
“*306 Pursuant to KRS 532.075 we have made a careful review of the record and have determined that the death sentence was not imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.075(5) — 9 cases
Bowling v. Commonwealth, 942 S.W.2d 293 (Ky. 1997).
“*306 Pursuant to KRS 532.075 we have made a careful review of the record and have determined that the death sentence was not imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.075(5)(b) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.075(6) — 22 cases
Chapman v. Commonwealth, 265 S.W.3d 156 (Ky. 2008).
“Although Chapman's case is unique in that he actively sought to receive the death penalty as a punishment for his offenses, we have, nevertheless, engaged in the proportionality review required by KRS 532.075(3). Chapman brutally stabbed two innocent children to death, meaning…”
Caudill v. Commonwealth, 120 S.W.3d 635 (Ky. 2003).
“Our review is governed solely by the provisions of KRS 532.075. 6. KRS 532.075(6) data. Failure to provide access to data compiled pursuant to KRS 532.”
Dunlap v. Commonwealth, 435 S.W.3d 537 (Ky. 2013).
“Where statutes do not interfere or threaten to interfere with the orderly administration of justice, what boots it to quibble over which branch of government has rightful authority? We respect the legislative branch, and in the name of comity and common sense are glad to accept…”
Sanders v. Commonwealth, 801 S.W.2d 665 (Ky. 1990).
“Next, appellant submits that proportionality review pursuant to KRS 532.075 is unconstitutional for lack of articulated standards used by this Court.”
Hunt v. Commonwealth, 304 S.W.3d 15 (Ky. 2010).
“” Pursuant to KRS 532.075 we have reviewed the record and have determined that the death sentence was not imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.075(6)(a) — 12 cases
Stopher v. Commonwealth, 57 S.W.3d 787 (Ky. 2001).
“Furthermore, the evidence supports the finding of an aggravating circumstance.”
Wheeler v. Commonwealth, 121 S.W.3d 173 (Ky. 2003).
“26 and KRS 532.075(2). During the individual voir dire, the trial judge asked each juror several questions related to his or her religious beliefs.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.075(6)(a)(b) — 1 case
Woodall v. Commonwealth, 63 S.W.3d 104 (Ky. 2002).
“We have considered whether the death sentence is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, as required by statute and have considered all circumstances of the crime committed here, and all of the evidence surrounding the defendant and his background.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.075(6)(a)(b)(c) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.075(6)(c) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.075(8) — 1 case
St. Clair v. Commonwealth, 451 S.W.3d 597 (Ky. 2014).
“The remaining claims are part of the direct appeal of his most recent death sentence, though some of them touch on our statutory review under KRS 532.075 and are discussed with that review.”
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.