Court Opinion

ID: 9655474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:11:49.540807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:18.898474
License: Public Domain

Justice CUNNINGHAM,
concurring in result only.
I concur in the result of the very well-written opinion of our Chief Justice. I write separately, however, simply to make two points.
First of all, the majority opinion correctly points out that because the decision in Old Chief is not based upon any constitutional principle, we are not obligated to follow it. Old Chief was a 5-4 split of the United States Supreme Court and dealt with a federal evidentiary rule basically identical to our own, but with a criminal statute that is not identical to our own. For instance, the federal law on convicted felons does not include all felonies as does our KRS 527.040a).1
I do not think we should hitch our wagon to any decision of the United States Supreme Court unless we need to. Here, we do not need to. We can simply decide this case based upon our interpretation of our own KRE 403. Unless necessary, our decisions should not rise nor fall upon the caprice of another tribunal’s discretion, regardless of how august that body might be.
Secondly, I write to make certain that there is nothing in our decision here today that could be misunderstood by prosecutors and judges as far as their appropriate roles are concerned. The word “stipulate” has infested this case considerably. Stipulate is synonymous with agreement.2 No *768court in this state has the power to require the state to stipulate to anything. To do so would be a serious infringement upon Sections 27 and 28 of our state constitution. It is my understanding that what we are saying here today is simply this: limited to the prosecution of a convicted felon in possession of a handgun, trial courts should sustain any objection by a defense lawyer for the introduction of the nature and name of the prior felony crime.
To say more, I fear, is to invite trouble.
Thusly, I respectfully concur in result only.
SCOTT, J., joins this opinion concurring in result only.
Opinion by

. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)(A) states that the term "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” excludes “Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices.”

. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.2004) defines stipulation as a "voluntary agreement *768between opposing parties concerning some relevant point....”
Webster’s New World Dictionary (Second College Edition 1979) defines stipulation as the "point or condition agreed upon, as in a contract.”