Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ballard v. Commonwealth

Kentucky Supreme Court

Decided January 21, 1988No. 87-SC-11-MRPublished

1DissentWintersheimer, Justice

I respectfully dissent from the majority decision because I believe the trial judge did not abuse his discretion when he excluded a witness pursuant to RCr 9.48 and he did not abuse his discretion by denying a motion for a new trial.

The trial judge clearly considered the matter and determined that O.W. Ballard’s viewing of a significant portion of the child’s video-taped testimony violated RCr 9.48 and resulted in prejudice under the facts and circumstances of the case. This was a proper exercise of discretion by the trial judge and was not an automatic exclusion of a witness.

The trial judge…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Jillson v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1970
  2. Carwile v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1985

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

Powered by the Exa API