Court Opinion

ID: 9679862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:11:25.480073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:22.443062
License: Public Domain

WINTERSHEIMER,
Justice, dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because KRE 609 and KRS 532.055(2)(a)(6) do not conflict; the former only refers to instances where a person has been convicted of a crime. The offense Manns was impeached with was adjudicated in juvenile court and this particular rule of evidence has no application. KRS 532.055(2)(a)(6) is applicable and should be granted comity.
The Court of Appeals was correct in determining that a person may properly be impeached under the plain language of KRS 532.055 and that the statute in question is not an abrogation of judicial power because it follows the clearly delineated precedent established by this Court. KRS 532.055(2)(a)(6) controls, and to the extent that KRS 610.320(4) and KRS 635.040 are in conflict, the former statute controls.
Finally, the closing argument as it concerned sentencing guidelines was possibly inappropriate but the Court of Appeals was correct in ruling that the claim by Manns was unpreserved and that no palpable error occurred.
I would affirm the conviction.