Court Opinion

ID: 9883912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:25:20.18893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:33.028248
License: Public Domain

LEIBSON, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the results, but disagree with the majority opinion in two respects.
First, I agree with the appellant that the murder instruction did not sufficiently define what was necessary before conviction based on hastening the victim’s death. To find the appellant guilty of murder for having inflicted wounds or injury which “hastened” the victim’s death, the instructions should explicitly require “a causal connection between the wounds or injury inflicted by the defendant and the victim’s death but for which death would not have occurred at the time when it did.”
The instructions as given are not sufficiently clear on the fact that the appellant’s acts must contribute directly to the cause of death. Here there was reliable medical *446evidence indicating that the beating inflicted by the appellant was not a substantial contributing factor in hastening the victim’s death. In such circumstances it is incumbent on the court to make this requirement clear to the jury.
Next, I disagree with the decision of the majority regarding impeachment evidence against the witness, Terry Mann. The evidence offered to show that his reputation for truth and veracity was bad should have been admitted. A common sense meaning of the term “general reputation in the community” (Lawson, Kentucky Evidence Handbook, 2d ed. Sec. 415), includes family.
The witness in this case was Terry Mann’s first cousin. He had known him since he was a baby. The witness’ opinion was not based on statements by one family member, but Mann’s general reputation within his own family. That should be enough to qualify such evidence.