Legal Opinion · Dissent

Childers v. Commonwealth

Kentucky Supreme Court

Decided March 24, 2011No. 2009-SC-000297-MRPublished

1DissentVenters, J.

We respectfully disagree with the Majority’s conclusion that cross-examination of a witness under KRE 608(b) is restricted by KRE 609, and, therefore, we dissent. The Majority holds that KRE 608(b) forbids the cross-examination of a witness about a specific instance of dishonest conduct when that conduct resulted in a criminal conviction, but allows such cross-examination when the subject of the inquiry was not convicted of a crime arising from such conduct. We dissent from the majority’s interpretation of KRE 608(b) because it is contrary to the plain meaning of the rule; offends the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Carmelita Elcock v. Kmart CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
  2. United States v. Virginia Hurst (90-6235) Sam T. Burnett (90-6448) and Eddie E. Shutt (90-6254)Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1991
  3. United States v. WilkersonCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2001
  4. United States v. BarnhartCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010
  5. Baker v. KammererKentucky Supreme Court · 2006

1 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