Court Opinion

ID: 9692221
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:47:49.719742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:33.336580
License: Public Domain

CUNNINGHAM, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
Justice Venters does an excellent job of sorting out a confusing array of numerous counts and instructions. I concur for the most part, but dissent as to the Court’s reversal on instructions 8 and 10. These instructions were identical, but there was sufficient evidence to convict on both. And since the jury convicted on both, I see no unanimity problem as to these two instructions. Although they were overlapping, as opposed to identical, I would *577apply the same logic to instructions 6 and 7. Again, there was sufficient and differential evidence on both, and the jury convicted on both. This is consistent with my dissent in Miller v. Commonwealth, 283 S.W.3d 690 (Ky.2009). I concur in every other aspect of the opinion and also commend the trial court’s work in dealing with a complex set of instructions.