Commonwealth v. Bass

Respectfully, I dissent.

We should affirm the Order of the Court of Appeals denying the Commonwealth’s Motion for Intermediate Relief for two reasons, one procedural and one substantive.

Procedurally, the interlocutory appeals statute, KRS 22A.020(4), is erroneously applied here. It is limited to matters “vital to the Commonwealth’s case (Eaton v. Commonwealth, Ky., 562 S.W.2d 637 (1978)).” The issue here does not fit this description because the dismissal of the charges in Counts 3-16 has no effect on the trial of the remaining Counts, 1 and 2. Although the trial court’s Order used ambiguous…