Court Opinion

ID: 9660539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:15:26.7779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:20.336692
License: Public Domain

*190KELLER, Justice,
concurring.
I vote to affirm Appellant’s convictions and sentences, but I write separately as to Part VII (“Pregnancy of the Female Victim”) because I disagree with the majority’s suggestions that “the jury was entitled to hear such evidence,”1 that the evidence “was properly admitted,”2 and that the evidence was “fair comment to explain her identity.”3 In fact, I agree wholeheartedly with Justice Stumbo’s analysis and conclusion that this evidence was wholly irrelevant and therefore inadmissible. I nonetheless concur in the result reached by the majority opinion because I disagree with Justice Stumbo’s conclusion as to the prejudice associated with the erroneous admission of this evidence. Instead, I agree with what the majority has to say in the first sentence in Part VII — “[i]t was not prejudicial error to admit evidence that the female victim was pregnant at the time of her murder.” 4 The brief reference to the victim’s pregnancy was harmless in the context of this ease and did not call the jury’s verdicts into question or raise the inference that Appellant was deprived of his right to a fair trial.

. Wheeler v. Commonwealth, Ky., op. at 181.

. Id.

. Id.

. Id.