Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Allen v. Commonwealth

Kentucky Supreme Court

Decided March 21, 2013No. 2010-SC-000353-DGPublished

1ConcurrenceMinton, C.J.

I concur with the majority in result only because I disagree with the majority’s interpretation of Kentucky Rules of Evidence (KRE) 608(b) and 609. But because application of KRE 608(b) and 609 to this case violates Allen’s due process right to present a defense, I concur in the majority’s result — remanding the case for a new trial.

Respectfully, I disagree with that portion of the majority’s opinion in effect amending KRE 608 and 609. I would read the rules consistent with this Court’s recent opinion in Childers v. Commonwealth.18 KRE 609 exclusively regulates witness impeachment relating to…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Davis v. AlaskaSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Cotton v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1970
  3. Commonwealth v. RichardsonKentucky Supreme Court · 1984
  4. State v. HillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2011
  5. United States v. OsazuwaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API